2001-12-18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 MODIFICATION LYNNE ACKNER PROPERTY OWNER:
LYNNE ACKNER, K. & L. PAGELS ZONE: LOCATION: LOTS 27 AND 28, HERALD
SQUARE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE
MODIFICATION REQUEST IS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD
INCREASE LOT 27 BY 645 SQ. FT. AND REDUCE LOT 28 BY 645 SQ. FT. ANY
MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NOS. 125-9-27, 28
LYNNE ACKNER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-86, Modification, Lynne Ackner, Meeting Date: December 18, 2001
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes a boundary line alteration between two existing subdivision lots: lot 27 and lot 28.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The boundary line agreement occurs between lot 27 and lot 28 in the Herald Square
subdivision, all other lot arrangements stay the same.
Topography: The applicant proposes to move the lot line in the area of an embankment near the rear of the
properties.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: No changes are proposed to the water and wastewater systems on either lot.
Drainage: No changes in site grading are proposed, therefore, no alterations to existing site drainage is
anticipated.
Lot sizes: Lot 27 will increase by 645 sf to 25,770 sf and lot 28 will be reduced by 645 sf to 20,560 sf.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this modification request.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should determine if the boundary line agreement is significant
enough to require additional environmental review.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 13-86 - Approved 3/17/87, 46 lot subdivision Phase I”
MR. BROWN-Not a lot to this one. No clear indication as to the necessity for the boundary line change.
That’s the only really concern that Staff had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MRS. ACKNER-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please?
MRS. ACKNER-My name is Lynne Ackner. I live at 7 Mabel Terrace, Queensbury, NY.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed action here?
MRS. ACKNER-Certainly. The proposal is a boundary line adjustment. As your notes indicate, it would
increase my lot, my husband’s and my lot, by 645 square feet, reduce our neighbor’s lot by 645 square feet. I
think I also included the boundary line agreement that I had our neighbors sign. Basically the reason that
we’re requesting this is for setback purposes only, for an in ground pool. Our line, as you see from the map I
think I also enclosed, we are on a cul de sac. When they divided up and made the different lots and they
placed the house on, they did not really look at the lot for basically visual purposes, and our line cuts through
our back yard. We didn’t know we didn’t own that until we decided we better get a surveyor to come up and
do that work for us, and we realized that some of our backyard we don’t own. If you look visually back, you
would think that what the proposed is, I think that’s also on the map that I gave you, I think it’s a dotted line.
Proposed is visually, if you look back, it looks like our property. We’ve always treated it as our property, as
the neighbors have always treated it (lost words). So basically it’s for visual purposes it will look like it will
remain the same. It’s just for setback purposes none of the pool is going to be on the property. I think we’re
going to put a 16 by 32 foot pool in, and I think the last three feet it wouldn’t make the ten feet setback
requirements for an in-ground pool. The reason that we wanted to put it where it is is this map doesn’t also
show topography. When you go past where the end of the pool would be, it slopes down on the right hand
side, and we’d have to do a lot more excavation if we moved it more toward, away from where we want to do
the boundary line adjustment. I don’t believe it’s going to affect any of the neighbors. First of all, you have
the neighbors on Lot 28 that’s already approved this, have signed something, and behind us is all woods, and
on the other side it’s far away from the property. So I don’t think it’s going to affect anybody else in the
neighborhood.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you. Any questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the only question I have is why are we going to do it, but you clarified that. That’s
it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have no questions. I had the same thing as Tom, why, but now we know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Just, has a boundary line already been executed?
MRS. ACKNER-It has been executed. It should have been in your packet. If it wasn’t, it’s my mistake. It
has been executed because I wanted to show you that we did get the agreement of the neighbors. It has not
been actually recorded. It will be because on the E & A I wanted to be able to indicate that we had
subdivision approval from Planning Board. So it will be recorded, but it has been executed boundary line
agreement. It was executed November 17.
th
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that Staff wanted to add?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Does someone want to put a motion up, please?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 LYNNE ACKNER,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to SB 13-86 (Herald Sq.), Lynne
Ackner for a boundary line adjustment that would increase lot 27 by 645 sq. ft. and reduce lot 28 by 645 sq.
ft. Any modification to a Planning Board subdivision is subject to review and approval. Tax Map No. 125-9-
27, 28, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/21/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 12/14/01;
12/18/01 Staff Notes
12/5/01 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification involving tax map nos. 125-9-27, 28 is approved and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Good luck.
MRS. ACKNER-Thank you very much.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 MODIFICATION CERRONE BUILDERS, BAY BERRY
MEADOWS PROPERTY OWNER: CERRONE BLDRS, M/M LORRAIN, M/M PAIGE
AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: BAYBERRY MEADOWS
SUBDIV., OFF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED
SUBDIVISION. LOT 28 WILL BE CONVEYED TO OWNERS OF LOT 8 AND LOT 12. ANY
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-7.1, 289.12-1-7.29, 289.12-1-7.25
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1997, Modification, Cerrone Builders, Bay Berry Meadows, Meeting
Date: December 18, 2001 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes eliminating lot 28 of the Bayberry Meadows subdivision and incorporating the land area
into two existing lots in the subdivision: lot 8 and lot 12.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The boundary line alteration involves the dispersion of lot 28 of the subdivision between lots
8 and 12; all other lot arrangements stay the same.
Topography: The applicant proposes to move the lot lines associated with lot 28, the lot originally envisioned
to be transferred to the Town department of Parks and Recreation.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: No changes are proposed to the water and wastewater systems on either lot.
Drainage: No changes in site grading are proposed, therefore, no alterations to existing site drainage is
anticipated.
Lot sizes: Lot 12 will increase by approximately 0.16 ac to 1.34 ac and lot 8 will increase by approximately 6
ac. to 8.61 ac. Lot 28 will be dissolved.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this modification request.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should determine if the boundary line agreement is significant
enough to require additional environmental review.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 1-1997 - Modified 8/17/99, 11 lot
subdivision Phase II
Staff comments:
The proposed boundary line reconfiguration would not create a violation of the area
requirements of the zoning ordinance. No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this modification.
Staff would recommend consideration be given to no further subdivision of the lots.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I’m Mike O’Connor, for the purpose of your record, from Little &
O’Connor, representing Cerrone Builders, and basically what we would like to do is subdivide Lot 28 and add
it to two existing lots by merger. We will make it subject to the same restrictions as the original lots that were
sold. We will add the larger portion of it to Lot Number Eight, and the smaller 20 foot strip to Lot Number
12. In the package that I submitted, I submitted the actual deeds that we have drawn for the purposes of
making the transfer, if this is approved, so you would see the terms and conditions that we were submitting
in. Basically we are making the existing subdivision lots larger. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, I’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-The only question I had, and I don’t know if it necessarily pertains to the modification, is
when this was originally approved, was this land going to be given to the Town in lieu of the recreation
compensation?
MR. O’CONNOR-No. It was not in lieu of recreation. It was going to be given as open space. We tried to
give it to the Recreation Department. They did not want it. We tried to give it to the Town. I think at that
time the Town was in the process of setting up their conservation group, and they did not want it. I’ve lost a
little bit of track of it, but in the last year or so I’ve been trading correspondence with Chris Round and the
Staff department showing them all the old history and the approvals and what not, and basically we have built
out the subdivision. We have this piece of property that’s not buildable, and we’d like to add it to the two
adjoining lots.
MR. RINGER-Other than that, I didn’t have any questions. Thank you, Mike.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I understand what you’re doing, all right. The problem is when I went to the
indentures and the covenants and the deed descriptions, and then tried to match them to map that had no
north orientation on it at all, there was no way I could get from your documentation to this map. Even when
we went down to the site visits, it was very difficult to determine what we were talking about here. Now, I
don’t know whether I’m the only one on the Board who struggled with that. I might be, but there was, you
know, this map, in my opinion, is totally inadequate.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me try and walk you through that, if I can. This is a smaller map of this larger
map, and Staff raised part of the same question with us that, were we complicating it by not making it clear,
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
but basically there’s a 20 foot strip along the top of Lot Number 12. That gets added to Lot 12 for the full
depth of Lot 12.
MR. VOLLARO-It adds 1.34 acres to that lot.
MR. STEVES-It goes from 1.18 to 1.35.
MR. STEVES-That’s .17 increase to Lot 12.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the balance of the land gets added to Lot Number Eight. On the larger map, you
might see, it’s so long since I did the deeds, I think we began the deeds at this point. I forget where I did the
deeds, but basically we’re conveying this piece right here to Lot Number Eight, and saying in the deed of
conveyance that they are merged and considered all one lot, as though they were that size, that configuration,
when they initially were developed, and we’re conveying this lot or this strip here to that lot there, and I think
the descriptions fit. Maybe the map didn’t show what you had.
MR. VOLLARO-When I look at the Staff notes, I see that Lot Number 12 will increase by .16 acres to a total
of 1.34. Matt, you said 1.7.
MR. STEVES-No, .17 to 1.35.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that lot is now 1.35 and Lot Eight is now 8.61 acres?
MR. STEVES-8.61, 8.62, correct, depending on how you round it off. If your Lot Eight was 2.61, it gets
increased to 8.62.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was my intention, Mr. Vollaro, if we have your approval, to file with you a modification
map that shows this configuration, and have it stamped the same as if we had a subdivision, so that we can
file this in the County Clerk’s Office.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess my only problem with this, Mike, is that when you sit down and review something
like this and you can’t make heads or tails of it right away, it gets to be a little frustrating.
MR. O'CONNOR-I apologize. I thought the deed description would give it to you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I looked at the deed description, and I tried to match the deed description with this,
but if I didn’t have this oriented to the compass, I couldn’t do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I probably, when I drew the deed description, had the full subdivision map in front
of me, which would have the compass orientation in front of me.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, just that it was kind of confusing when we went down there. I think one of the
confusing things was the fact that we couldn’t get over and actually drive to the parcel. We had to see it from
a distance, which was kind of hard for me to comprehend, but I understand, pretty much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Just that I concur with Mr. Vollaro that getting oriented on this map was difficult. Reading
it was difficult. I had to get out my wife’s magnifying glass to make out, just make sure that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Are you telling me that I shouldn’t take short cuts? I know how busy Mr. Steves is, and I
said I was going to get this done by the end of the year, and we just tried to put it in.
MR. STROUGH-Well, even with a magnifying glass, I couldn’t read that little box in Lot Eight, whatever it
says, it’s a rectangular box, and I can’t tell you the word.
MR. O'CONNOR-It says replacement area.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Septic system.
MR. O'CONNOR-Septic system replacement area.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You have to use my glasses, John.
MR. STROUGH-And Cherry Tree Circle, there’s no Cherry Tree Circle, is there?
MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s the name of the road that goes back toward Bay Road heading to the west, that
ends up in the cul de sac, that is called Cherry Tree Circle.
MR. STROUGH-All right, but that Cherry Tree Circle that I’m looking at isn’t the Cherry Tree Circle, that’s
actually Berry Patch Drive, I believe.
MR. STEVES-Well, it was renamed to Cherry Tree Circle, after the approval, and because of conflicts of
other roads within the Town, they renamed that Cherry Tree Circle, and that is the 911 address on that road.
So what you have is a copy of the original subdivision that was filed, and the Town, when they did the as-
built for the road, was renamed Cherry Tree Circle.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think it was renamed Berry Patch Drive. Because we went looking for it and we
couldn’t find any Cherry Tree Circle.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you reversed it. This is the original subdivision map and was changed from Cherry
Tree to Berry Patch.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So we had trouble locating it because of that, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s got to be an easier way to name streets in this Town.
MR. STROUGH-Now, just to Staff, have we been provided documentation? Do we have their find that the
Town is not interested in this? I mean, the applicant says that, and I assume that the applicant’s correct, but
do we have documentation verifying that?
MR. BROWN-I don’t believe there’s anything in the file right now. I don’t know if there’s something that
they can produce, if they’ve spoken to the Rec Department or the Land Conservation, but.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I’d hate to move ahead and then have everybody yell and clamor about a piece of
property that may have been a misunderstanding. I’d like to see documentation, and I think I’ve got the idea,
but I didn’t have any documentation showing me the boundary line adjustments. I mean, I got the verbiage,
telling me how the lots were changed, in terms of acreage, but I never got a map showing me exactly how the
boundary property lines would change.
MR. O'CONNOR-You got the deeds.
MR. STROUGH-I could read through the deeds.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and the deed shows you how they would be merged.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, it would be nicer if we had that on the map. I see that now.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My offer is, on your approval, to file a modified map, or modification map, subject
to the Chairman’s signature, for filing with the County Clerk’s Office, which is what we’ve done in the past.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the Staff recommends that no further subdivision of the lots be allowed, and I
assume that’s okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-By the restrictions, it’s not permitted. You’re permitted to have a single residential home
on the lot, and the deed says that it will merge with the existing pre-existing lot.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you. Those are all the questions I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. RINGER-No, I have no further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please?
MR. RINGER-I’ve got one here, but I’ve got some conditions to it that we’ve been discussing. So I just
want to condition to see if anybody else has anything or agrees with the conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. RINGER-The resolution I’ve got prepared by Staff, with the first condition being that there be no
further subdivision of Lot Eight or Twelve. I realize what Mike has said, but this puts it in the motion
anyway that there can’t be any further subdivision of Lot Eight or Twelve.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Condition Number Two will be that the applicant will provide documentation that the
Town is not interested in taking any portion of this land.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask that you be satisfied with a determination by the Zoning Administrator or
Chris Round. I think we made the offers, and were told simply that they weren’t, I don’t know if they had
formal resolutions or whatever. Chris Round was satisfied with that, and that’s why we’re coming with this
modification.
MR. RINGER-I’d ask Mark on that. Mark, the reason for this modification request is that this original
approval was that portions of this land would be given to the Town.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I understand.
MR. RINGER-And the discussion here, I don’t know if you were here for the discussion, but John brought
up the fact that there’s no documentation, only the applicant’s, that the Town doesn’t want this property, and
the condition that I’m suggesting is that we get something, documentation that the Town doesn’t want it,
other than.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, that’s fine, if the Board wants to go with that condition. The applicant’s
suggestion is that you leave that to Staff to confirm with the Department of Parks and Recreation and/or the
Recreation Commission.
MR. RINGER-How do you feel about it?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think it makes any difference. Your concern is that the applicant is not
somehow misinformed or under the wrong impression, and that, in fact, the Town wants the property, that’s
your concern.
MR. RINGER-Right, or that we’re misinformed by some misunderstanding.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. As long as you get it confirmed, and I don’t know how Staff feels, but as long as
it’s confirmed, from my standpoint, it doesn’t matter who confirms it, whether it’s Staff that goes to the
Recreation Department and/or the Recreation Commission to confirm it or you require the applicant to do
that. That makes no difference, legally.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with going that route, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we go that route, then, let Staff confirm that.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and the third condition was that the applicant will provide a modification map with the
new lines, which you said you’d do.
MR. O'CONNOR-No objection to that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So, I’ll make a motion, then.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 CERRONE
BUILDERS, BAY BERRY MEADOWS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Subdivision No. 1-1997, Cerrone
Builders. Lot 28 will be conveyed to owners of Lot 8 and Lot 12. Any modification to an approved
subdivision is subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 289.12-1-7.1, 289.12-1-7.29,
289.12-1-7.25, and
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/21/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 12/14/01;
12/18/01 Staff Notes
12/17/01 Fax to M. O’Connor, staff notes
12/5/01 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification to Lots 28, 8 and 12 is approved and is subject to the following conditions:
1. There will no further subdivision Lots 8 or 12.
2. The applicant will provide a modification map with the new lines.
3. Confirmation from Town Planning Staff that the Town or the Town Recreation Department is not
interested in acquiring this property.
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Planning Board
Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/18/01 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Happy Holidays to you folks.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HAL
RAVEN (THE VISTAS) PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES
ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
SUBDIVISION OF A 31.35 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 3.48 ACRES (LOT 9), AND
27.87 ACRES (LOT 10). CROSS REFERENCE: SB 19-1993 TAX MAP NO. 87-1-10.1 LOT SIZE:
31.35 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
MATT STEVES & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the past public hearings have been tabled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2001, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Hal Raven (The Vistas), Meeting
Date: December 18, 2001 “Project Description:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 42.19 acre parcel in the Vistas subdivision. Lot 9 is
proposed for development in the immediate future, while lot 10 appears to be reserved for future
development.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The new lot, lot 9, is proposed at the end of the town road known as Veranda Lane. Lot 10
appears to be reserved and planned for future development.
Topography: The new lots have an average slope percentage of approximately 20%.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: On site water and wastewater systems are proposed for lot 9, no provisions have
been made for lot 10.
Drainage: Individual on site stormwater control devices should be constructed to manage any increase in
volume. The project engineer has proposed a series of sediment traps to be constructed within the
subdivision, in order to address an existing erosion/runoff problem.
Lot sizes: The total area of the subdivision appears to have grown from 31.35 acres, as shown on the August
29, 2001 map on file, to 42.19 acres, as shown on the current submission.
Future development: With the proposed configuration of lot 10 it is apparent that the applicant is contemplating
future development of the lot.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The proposed subdivision is an Unlisted Action.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
??
2/6/80: -7-Lot Subdivision with 13-Lots for future development, (Noted as Sub 4-78)
one –2.23 ac, two –3.599 ac, three –2.735 ac, four –1.923 ac, five –2.283 ac, six –1.30 ac,
o
seven –0.726 ac
Zone R-3 and R-2: minimum lot size 12,000 square feet.
o
??
11/24/92: 7-Lot Subdivision (Noted as Sub 4-78)
one-2.19ac, two-3.53 ac, three –2.77ac, four –2.40 ac, five –2.29 ac, six –1.62 ac, seven –0.76
o
ac
Zone: SFR-1A, RR-3A, and LC-10
o
??
10/28/93: 3-Lot Subdivision (Noted as Sub 19-1993) (file notes that this was part of the 1980
subdivision
two –2.93 ac, three –2.12 ac, eight 1.25 ac
o
Zone: SFR-1A, RR-3A, and LC-10
o
Proposed:
??
September 2001 3-Lot with 12 lots for future and 8-Lots existing for a total of 23 Lots nine –1.64,
ten –1.84 tabled
Staff comments:
The proposed subdivision appears to be consistent with the minimum requirements of
the zoning ordinance. With no new roads proposed it does not appear as though this subdivision layout will
present any undue increase on public services. Was this map prepared based on information gathered during
a field survey? If so, why does it differ from the previous submission, which stated that it was made from a
field survey. Staff recommends no further approvals be issued for lot 10 until such time that an overall
development plan has been generated and offered for review by the Board. Incremental, one lot
development is strongly discouraged.”
MR. BROWN-I’d like to see a complete plan for the remaining lands before we do anymore subdivision.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent Raven Industries on this application.
Referring to the map that’s in front of you on the board, showing the two lots, if you’ll recall back about
election time I was in front of this Board, and Mr. Raven was trying to obtain two lots, and then we showed a
conceptual plan for the rest of the property. We do agree with Staff that until such time as we finish the
topography on the rest of the property, not just have the USGS on there, that we should exclude that. We
merged the two lots that we were proposing, at the end of the road, that access off the existing Town road of
Veranda Lane to one three acre lot, the remaining lands that are there, they’ve been surveyed. The
topography’s been done on this one particular lot, and a couple of hundred feet around it, and the rest of the
area of the property is from USGS. Mr. Raven is going to utilize the money from the sale of this lot, which
he has a contract, or ready to sign a contract for this lot, once it’s approved, to develop the plan for the rest
of the property, so that we won’t be piece-mealing this. We’ll be coming back I with one last development
plan for the remainder of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you respond to Staff’s comment regarding the difference in the maps, based on
field survey?
MR. STEVES-The field survey was performed on this, the entire lower half of the subdivision, the existing
eight lots was completely surveyed. The property up and just beyond the zone line has been surveyed. The
rest of it we’ve reconned about the property, found the evidence, but we haven’t completed a topography or a
perimeter around there. You’re probably plus or minus an acre or so on the total remaining lands on Lot 10,
but that won’t affect, because what we’re proposing now is below that lot line, or that zone line. So that
would definitely affect the remaining Lot 10, how that development plan would work once we complete our
survey, absolutely, and that’s why I wholeheartedly agree, and so does my client, that with Staff is that after
this, before, there won’t be anymore one or two lot subdivisions of this property. We’ll come in for a
complete development plan on the rest of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-When do you think that’ll happen?
MR. STEVES-In the spring.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, I’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay for right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Same here.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m looking at the proposed drainage map. Did you draw this up?
MR. STEVES-That was done by Tom Nace, the engineer.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, my question on here was, install eight foot by two foot deep stone line silt
basin located on lot number seven, and there’s one on five, too, right? There’s two of them. Is that right,
Tom?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Seven and five.
MR. STROUGH-Now, are they going to have to get the property owner’s easements for the location of the
drainage basins?
MR. NACE-No. Those are lots, I believe, that Mr. Raven still controls, still owns.
MR. STROUGH-But how about future access to those, in case they need to be maintained?
MR. NACE-When they transfer it, they’ll have to have an easement transferred with them.
MR. STROUGH-So those easements and that language will have to be in the deeds.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you identify yourself for the record?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. NACE-I’m sorry. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering.
MR. MAC EWAN-We know who you are.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Staff notes, I have on-site stormwater control devices should be constructed, not to
be confused with the proposed sediment traps to be constructed. I think they’re referring to the lot, Lot 9,
that’s being proposed. I think they’re trying to suggest that maybe a stormwater plan be prepared for that.
MR. NACE-I’m looking at Staff comments dated December 18, 2001, and I don’t see any comment. Was
that on a previous comment letter?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll look for it.
MR. BROWN-I think under drainage, where it says study of plat, down to drainage. Do you have the Staff
notes? It talks about individual on-site, and I think it’s just, each lot development should control its own
increase in stormwater, that’s all.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. Just, on the other lots that he has up there, as on this one, I’m sure that they will
be using downspouts, gutters into a small drywell on the perimeter of the house. So your standard erosion
control measures that would apply to any residential lot would be implemented in this situation.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Will that stormwater plan be presented at the time of the building application?
MR. STEVES-At this time, I believe when you go for a building permit, you have to show what type of
house you’re going to place, on there, whereabouts it’s going to be placed, the septic, and at that point, I
don’t know what Staff (lost words).
MR. BROWN-Yes. Typically it’s not addressed at the building permit process. Usually there’s a, you’ll find a
typical on the subdivision map that shows this is how each individual lot is going to handle the stormwater,
however that is, whether its eaves trenches or gutters or basins, but that’s, it’s a typical approval for each lot
in a subdivision. It’s usually placed on the subdivision map.
MR. STEVES-I can say that Mr. Raven, if this Board would like, we would have that plan, the way the
stormwater plan, whether it be an eaves trench or a drywell, depicted when we submit for a building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s saying that it has to be on the subdivision plat.
MR. STEVES-No. He’s saying that it has to be reviewed as per the original subdivision plan that has the
typical erosion control measures placed on it.
MR. BROWN-There’s both. Sometimes there’s just, it depends on how the subdivision approval is
conditioned. It could be worded so that the stormwater, I’m sorry, the erosion control measures have to go
by the plan, or if you have a typical stormwater plan that shows eaves trenches or catch basins for each lot,
that’s on the plan. Then you don’t have to do it for each building permit. It’s on the subdivision plat, and
each lot is then conditioned with that type of development, and that type of stormwater control. Typically,
though, this Board has had them on the plats.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. NACE-Why don’t we go ahead and put that on the plat, and it’ll be your eaves trenches without gutters,
or gutters and downspouts and drywells, according to the owner’s choice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. John?
MR. STROUGH-Will that driveway be sloped, obviously, I don’t know what kind of excavation will be done
there, but will the driveway be sloped toward the road?
MR. STEVES-Yes, the grading on that, you’ll have a swale off the road, off the road for a little bit, probably
about 18 inches, and then come back up toward the finished grade of the garage floor.
MR. STROUGH-Either that or slope the driveway, pitch it one way or the other, so it dumps it.
MR. STEVES-It’ll be on either side, or to a swale and then back on to the lot before it makes the existing
road, that’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STROUGH-Just those two concerns, the stormwater and the easements are the only two that I had
concerns with, as far as this goes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall correctly, this is the, Verona Lane was where we visited one time and all the catch
basins looked like they were raised above the street? They weren’t adequate to catch?
MR. STEVES-I can address that. That was, there was a binder coat, and top coat wasn’t placed. Since the
last time we’ve been here, Mr. Raven has had the entire road top coated, and now the pavement is above the
catch basins and graded into the catch basin grates.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where do those catch basins go?
MR. STEVES-To a storm structure underneath the road.
MR. NACE-There’s a multiple series of cement filtration facilities up on the hill. Then down at the foot of
the hill, there’s a big infiltration bed off to the north side of the intersection with West Mountain Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that problem has been corrected, then, with the catch basins?
MR. STEVES-That as well as the stormwater plan that Mr. Nace has submitted for the two small retention
areas.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Nothing further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Getting back to the storm drain, the plan on the drainage, underneath West Mountain
Road there seems to be a culvert underneath there. Where does that go? Because there was some complaints
about water sheeting down over West Mountain Road, carrying sediment and sand and leaving it deposited
on West Mountain. The last time we did this, some of the neighbors from across the way were complaining
about that. Then I looked at this and when we looked at this, coming down off the hill the other day,
Saturday morning, I couldn’t see where this culvert was depositing the stuff on the other side of West
Mountain Road, whatever sediment there was.
MR. NACE-Okay. You know where the farm house is there, just south of the entry road?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-It’s on the southern side of the farmhouse, there’s a little ditch line that comes down across their
back door yard, and goes down to the road, and right there, I don’t know, maybe 150 yards or 100 yards
south of the Vistas Road is where it crosses.
MR. VOLLARO-And is this new, Tom?
MR. NACE-No, it’s an old problem. What happened, I believe originally, is when the upper lot on the Vistas
was developed, the ground was left barren for quite a while, and a good bit of silt was generated, and washed
down into the drainage way that goes down and eventually outlets across West Mountain Road there, and I
know a couple of years ago, I’m not sure whether it was one or two years ago, siltation was a fairly decent
problem, but the silt’s been cleaned out. The culvert across West Mountain Road still needs to be cleaned
out. That the County has agreed, I believe, to do that. Once the problem’s remedied, and really with the
stabilization of that upper lot on the Vistas, the source of the sediment has pretty well been taken care of.
Now, these sediment traps are simply to collect any remaining sediment that was deposited along the drainage
channel between there and West Mountain Road, to collect that and stop it from going down to the road.
MR. VOLLARO-But what we’re saying is these two traps essentially are going to mitigate the problem of a
lot of that sediment, but still we have to make sure that that culvert under West Mountain Road, and you say
that’s a County requirement?
MR. NACE-That’s a County culvert and a County Road.
MR. VOLLARO-So, if that’s clogged, it’ll just back up and run right over the top of the road.
MR. NACE-Yes, that’ll have to be cleaned out.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. VOLLARO-How do we do that? Do we talk to the County about that?
MR. BROWN-I’ve tried, on a couple of occasions, to have the County come out and take a look, and I’ve
never had luck, to set up a meeting with them, but they are aware of the problem, and I think they’ve
probably been out there a couple of times in the last three or four years to maintain it. It’s just an ongoing
maintenance.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the addition to this detention pond is certainly going to help, too, a lot. It’ll help a
lot.
MR. NACE-I think the main part of the problem is cleaning up the remaining tailing of.
MR. STEVES-That and the fact that now the catch basins are going to be picking up the stormwater down
the road, instead of being the catch basins an inch higher than the asphalt that was there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s certainly going to help as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This is an Unlisted Action , and I had talked to Craig about this, and we thought that,
or he thought that there may be a Short Form in the file when we did the Sketch Plan. Did we ever do a
Short Form on this action?
MR. STEVES-Yes. I believe we did.
MR. BROWN-There’s a Short Form in the file, but I don’t think you guys have done it yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t done SEQRA on this yet.
MR. STEVES-It was submitted the last time.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. He’s talking about whether we actually did the SEQRA.
MR. STEVES-No. Whether you went through SEQRA? I do not know.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I couldn’t see a Short Form included with the package.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is a Short Form.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you to give up the table for a second or two. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NORMAN PERRY
MR. PERRY-Norman Perry, 806 West Mountain Road. You were asking where the stormwater runoff goes.
Into my yard. After it crosses underneath West Mountain Road, it goes into my yard, and Mr. Vollaro, when
you were there, I didn’t know that you were coming. I wish I had. I would have shown you, the lawn
sprinklers in my yard, they’re probably under six inches of silt, from the runoff. The reason why you couldn’t
see where it was is because every year that we’ve owned this property we’ve had to re-seed it, because it’s in
our front yard, we want our house to look nice, and this gentleman who was speaking, he was saying that they
had done something up on the hill to put some new catch basins in or?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s part of this action, yes.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. PERRY-It hasn’t been done yet?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. PERRY-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It takes approval of this Board to get that done.
MR. PERRY-Okay, all right. Because all I’m asking for is protection.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the remedies that they have proposed will do the job. Still the issue, as we’ve
discussed, is that that one storm basin on your side of the road has to be taken care of by the County, which
isn’t subject to review of this Board or action. They need to come out and probably clean that one out, but
by the fact that they have put the final coat of asphalt surface on the road, which now brings the road
elevation about the catch basin elevation, which will now make the catch basins in the road work, and in
addition to the detention pond that’s proposed, I think will solve a lot of the problems.
MR. PERRY-What type of guarantee do we have that we won’t have a problem with it? I know we don’t
have any guarantees, I guess. What I’m, it’s like trying to pull teeth, from Mr. Raven, in the springtime to get
him to come up and fix my yard. I mean, are we going to be protected against that again, or what recourse
would I take, just in case it doesn’t work? I mean, I hope that it does work.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think myself or anyone on this Board can give you direction on what kind of
recourse that you would have if something didn’t work, and whether it would be, at this point, totally
attributed to runoff coming off that site, now that we see these recommendations, if we approve this thing
tonight, that will give them the opportunity to make the adjustments that need to be done on the subdivision.
I guess only time will tell whether it will work. I mean, the engineering shows that it’s going to work. It
shows us that detention pond is going to do it’s job. I think the problem that you were seeing on your side of
the road was the fact, part of it was an unfinished road, that was allowing the runoff not to infiltrate into the
storm drains, but also it was just letting it run right down the road, which is a big problem.
MR. PERRY-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hopefully that will be taken care of now.
MR. PERRY-Okay. Now, the last meeting we were at, you were going to have C.T. Male come up and do
our stormwater runoff?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t think so.
MR. PERRY-No?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t remember anything about C.T. Male.
MR. PERRY-No? Okay. Is there a possibility I could get a copy of the minutes of that meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. You could just go to the Town Clerk, and file what’s called a FOIL request form,
and they’ll get you the copies that you need.
MR. PERRY-I’m not trying to raise a stink. Like I mentioned to you, I’m in the construction trade. So I
don’t have any problems with that, but I’m just sick and tired of having to do work on my house every year
when it’s the same thing, year after year after year, and it looks like the delta.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hopefully this action that they’re doing here with these two, by paving the road, which
has already been done, and adding this detention basin, will help the problem. Okay. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that he could do is go to the County and see if he could force the County
to clear that culvert out, because if that culvert is continually blocked, whatever runoff that does come down
that’s not caught by those basins, is going to go on your property anyway. So I think you’ve got a problem
with the County, to get that thing cleaned out.
MR. PERRY-Another pulling teeth issue.
MR. STROUGH-Another suggestion, too, is that, could we make it conditional that the silt basins will be
constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit, so that we know they go in like pronto?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s not a problem.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STROUGH-So that they get a chance to see if they’re actually working, and the applicant says that they
might be before us in the spring with a bigger plan. At that time, we’ll be able to see if the silt basins are
doing the job.
MR. MAC EWAN-That seems reasonable.
MR. PERRY-I would agree with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. PERRY-Not at this time.
RUSS HOWARD
MR. HOWARD-My name is Russ Howard. I’m the property owner at 794 West Mountain Road. I’m
neighbors with Mr. Perry. I was here just to voice the same concerns as he had. For the past five, six years,
every spring we’ve got a beach in the back yard and in his front yard, and it’s just not fair. I mean, something
needs to be taken care of before anymore building is done, as far as I’m concerned. You can’t let anymore
building be done until the first problem is taken care of. If he’s going to start more excavating up there,
you’re going to have more problems if you don’t have the stuff in place before you do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HOWARD-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We think this remedy will do the trick. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HOWARD-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Short.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid
waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Am I the only one up here or what?
MR. RINGER-I think everybody was thinking a little bit.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that it’s as clean cut as it seems to be.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not suggesting that it was clean cut, but I’m suggesting that the remedies that are
proposed here are going to take care of that.
MR. RINGER-I think it’s mediated by the proposals.
MR. BROWN-I think the action could present one of those impacts. At the end of this little exercise you’re
doing now, you determine the significance of those impacts. So I think if you’re comfortable thinking it does
have an impact, you can do that, then you determine how big it’s going to be at the end.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we’ll say yes on C1. Right, gentlemen?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But when we get to the end, we can go back and see how its going to be mitigated.
MR. SCHACHNER-You should also, in C1., briefly describe the impact you’re referencing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-C1. has a whole laundry list of potential impacts. If you’re saying yes, say yes, and
include some brief description of the proposed impact.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So should we do drainage or flooding problems, potential for erosion and surface or
groundwater quantity?
MR. VOLLARO-I think all of those are involved in this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All of the above.
MR. VOLLARO-And probably this small map, entitled The Vistas, with no date on it or anything, but that
would probably be the thing we would refer to as the mitigation for this.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’re on C1., right?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, certainly I don’t think we’re talking about noise levels and traffic patterns.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-I think we’re just talking about the last part of that. There is a potential for erosion,
drainage and flooding problems.
MR. VOLLARO-The answer is yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-My point was only you’ll note that it says explain briefly, after each of the C1 through 7
items. So you should have something other than the word “yes”, just a brief explanation.
MR. STROUGH-All right. The parcel has had a history, in recent times, of those types of problems.
MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever your explanation is is fine. I was just pointing out you should have an
explanation.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. We just explained it.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there is a little controversy. We’ve had two people here, and aren’t we going to
go back now and explain how, C1?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to do C1.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone feel that way?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do, we’ve got to talk to C1.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but what about answering E., “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related
to potential adverse environmental impacts?”?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we’d put down yes, and then put down see, C1.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone in agreement?
MR. STROUGH-Sure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay. Now let’s go back to C1 and explain how it’s going to be taken care of.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, first we have to come up with what’s the problem. Right? What’s the historical
background on C1.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think you’ve done some brief explanation, and that’s all that’s required. As the
form indicates, what you now have to do, and as Craig referenced, he summarized by saying you to decide on
the magnitude or significance. I can’t remember which he said, either one is appropriate. You’ll note that the
form itself gives you a lot of guidance. It says each effect, and in this case you’ve identified one potential
effect, should be assessed in connection with its setting, the probability of occurring, its duration, its
irreversibility, its geographic scope, and its magnitude, and I think he may have mentioned the word
magnitude or significance. That’s obviously one to focus on, because the ultimate punch line here, as you’ll
recall is, you have to make a determination as to whether the potential environmental impact that you’ve
identified in Item C1 is of sufficiently large magnitude so that you feel compelled to require either a Long
Environmental Assessment Form or a Full Environmental Impact Statement. So what you should now do is
assess the potential environmental impact that you identified in C1 in accordance with those guidelines,
including what you think is the impact and what you think its magnitude is, its importance, its significance, its
irreversibility, several of you have mentioned, can it be mitigated, reduced or eliminated. Those are all
reasonable things to consider as you assess the importance of this impact.
MR. STROUGH-So I guess we would feel that the Planning Board feels that the proposed stormwater plan
would mitigate the concerns expressed in C1.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That sounds fine to me.
MR. SCHACHNER-If you feel that way, I think you should add something that you therefore believe that
the potential environmental impact is not very significant. If that’s how you feel.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds good.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s very significant. I think that what you’ve said is that this drawing mitigates
this problem, but I also think that when we do this we ought to take up on your position, John, and talk
about the newly proposed stormwater collection basins will be installed prior to issuance of building permits
on Lot Number Nine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would be a condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STEVES-We have a question on that, when you get to that vote. As far as, that’s fine if he wants to do
that now, but John had mentioned something about seeing how it reacts during the springtime rain. He was
talking about getting this lot, because he has a buyer, and he would like to start building this winter for a sale
of that lot with the constructed house in the spring. So could be place it upon CO, or?
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we do this. Before we negotiate anything here, as we seem to be heading, I
want to finish this SEQRA. So let’s go through the SEQRA. So we’re comfortable with that, that we feel
mitigation is going to be taken care of by the proposed drainage plan that accompanies this application.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, and that the problem is really not all that significant, I don’t think. I mean, I think
that we have to determine the level of significance, and very significant, minimum significant.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that the mitigation will make it non-significant.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was small to moderate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Don’t evaluate the proposed project and the mitigation separately, okay. The
proposed project includes the proposed mitigation. So evaluate the project including the proposed
mitigation, and ultimately you have to decide whether the project, with the mitigation as proposed, will or will
not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Those are the magic words of your punch line,
whether it will or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the proposed project, with its mitigation procedures, will not result in any
significant environmental impact on this project.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s how you feel.
MR. VOLLARO-I do.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HAL RAVEN (THE VISTAS), and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, you were asking.
MR. STEVES-Either way the Board would like to do, and we agree, just looking at that, as far as a timing
standpoint, if he starts construction of those, I think, to have this brought back with the changes, and have
the Chairman sign it and get it filed before he can start construction, but have him start the construction of
those detention or sedimentation basins prior to coming in to get a CO, or getting a building permit, but then
in the spring, to make sure that those mitigating factors are working properly is that, to review that in the
spring before a CO is issued, but not hold up a building permit, because the building permit would be trying
to be obtained in the next few weeks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is his intention, his plans to build this detention basin?
MR. STEVES-As soon as we get this approval.
MR. STROUGH-So he’s basically going to have the detention basins done before you even go for the
building permit?
MR. STEVES-It’ll be close, yes, but you’re saying, you had mentioned to see how they act in the spring.
That’s my question. If we waited until spring before he gets a building permit, it’s holding him up for three to
four months.
MR. MAC EWAN-My personal preference is to have them done now.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-So that when spring comes around, they’re up and operational and ready to go.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. BROWN-I think the applicant, or Mr. Steves is suggesting that. He’s also suggesting, I’ll have to thank
him for this because it’s kind of an enforcement thing on my part that I’d have to follow up on. He’s
suggesting that prior to any issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any other building permit in the
subdivision, we ensure that those new stormwater, or sediment traps or sediment basins work, and if they
don’t work, then we can address those before we give any Certificate of Occupancies, and that’s a real
incentive to the applicant, to get those done so he can get a Certificate of Occupancy.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you proposing to change or replace the word “building permit” with “Certificate of
Occupancy”? Is that what you’re really saying?
MR. STEVES-Yes. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. STROUGH-See, if you go with the CO, the CO might not take place until next summer, next fall. I
mean, we don’t know that for sure. If he wants to get on this right away, I think that the way we have it
currently worded, before a building permit is issued, will get him right on it right now.
MR. STEVES-I agree with the statement that you made, that you weren’t going to issue a building permit
until such time in the spring that you saw these working properly. That was my concern.
MR. STROUGH-The only way it’s worded is that these will be installed.
MR. STEVES-I understand that. I’m just saying when you first said that, you had mentioned about waiting
until spring, and I just wanted the Board to know that we’ll gladly start on the sedimentation basins
immediately after approval, but we did not want to affect not being able to get a building permit until spring.
MR. STROUGH-Here’s how I have it worded.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Before you introduce a motion, are you comfortable with this drawing?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then here’s how I have it worded. We’ll see if it’s okay with the applicant. Silt basins
will be constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit on Lot Number Nine.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s about what I had, newly proposed stormwater collection basins. Isn’t that what they
really are?
MR. STEVES-That’s fine. Like I said, I just didn’t want to have, and I’ll gladly add to that, as Craig has
mentioned, that no further CO’s until such time as they know that that is working properly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Vollaro will introduce the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to approve Subdivision No. 10-2001, for Hal Raven at The Vistas, in
accordance with the resolution as it’s been prepared by Staff, with the following additions: One, that the
drawing, Sheet One of One, dated August 24, 2001, shall contain a statement on erosion control methods and
shall be shown on the plat, and, Two, that the newly proposed stormwater collection basins will be installed
prior to the issuance of a building permit on Lot Number Nine.
MR. BROWN-I think, for accuracy, they’re referred to as siltation basins, not stormwater.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, siltation basins.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t we need to do Preliminary Stage first?
MR. SCHACHNER-I was just going to say. You didn’t specify it, but I assume we are talking about
Preliminary.
MR. MAC EWAN-We are doing Preliminary.
MR. SCHACHNER-You didn’t specify.
MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t want those in Preliminary.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to repeat it in Final anyway.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because if you put those conditions in Preliminary, that means we can’t approve the
Final subdivision until he does those construction.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Not only that, I have a question with the wording that Bob proposed, and I’ve got another
condition as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you have?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I have what I originally discussed is the easement rights to be included into the deeds
for access and maintenance of the silt basins for Lots Five and Seven.
MR. STEVES-I will put a note on the plan that the as built locations of the sedimentation basins will be
depicted on the lots with an easement surrounding them to be added into the deeds, and I will show that as
an as built afterwards, so that it’ll help whoever’s going to write that description. So that that’ll just be a help.
MR. BROWN-One thing that would be helpful for Staff, in the enforcement of it, is maintenance of the
basins. I don’t know if that’s been discussed or finalized yet. Is it going to be the lot owners or the developer
is going to maintain that?
MR. STROUGH-That was going to be my next question is the easement rights, would we want to make sure
that the Town has easement rights?
MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think so.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think the Town’s going to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically what happens in a subdivision where you have a scenario like this, after the
subdivision’s all built out, the developer goes on to his next project. Who maintains the responsibility? Is it
the property owner where the basins are located on?
MR. BROWN-If that’s the way it’s transferred, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what your intentions are?
MR. STEVES-Either that, or an easement granted to the Town, as has been done in the past also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where has it been done in the past, in that?
MR. STEVES-The Eddy Group, right across the street from my office here on Haviland Road and
Meadowbrook, where you have the detention basins, the Town took an easement to the end of the end
section, so that they could maintain any sediment that flows through that pipe onto private property. They
have an easement 250 feet off the Town road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other instances that you know of where the Town’s done that?
MR. STEVES-Waverly Place subdivision that was just approved on Meadowbrook Road, The Michaels
Group, same scenario.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure of any willingness of the Highway Department to take this. They may, but
I don’t think that they’ve indicated that they want this yet, so I’d be hesitant to include it in, at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-We can always come back and, later on down the road, and do a modification, turning it
over to the Town. Can we do that, if we so choose down the road, and the Town accepts it.
MR. SCHACHNER-You understand you can’t obligate the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, no, but what I’m saying for now, for the purpose of this approval, it becomes the
property owner’s responsibility, and should some sort of agreement happen down the road between the
property owner and the Town, the Town would take over the responsibility of it and we could do a
modification at that point, couldn’t we?
MR. STEVES-Right. I think the easement would be written into the deeds of those two lots, that whoever
purchases those lots would be responsibility of the maintenance of those sedimentation areas, unless, as the
Chairman has stated, that some time in the future we find out that the Town is willing to take those over. So
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
either way, we have something in there for the maintenance of those, whether it be the private owner or
whether it be the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got that, John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I have it Lots Number Five and Seven shown and defined silt basins. Deeds for Lots
Five and Seven will contain easement rights for access and maintenance of the silt basins, and I think I should
add it is understood that the maintenance of the silt basins is the owner’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you even need that whole thing about the easements or anything, because if
it’s going to be the property owner’s responsibility to take care of that.
MR. STROUGH-But I think we also want to include in this a right for the Town to be able to gain access to
those, should it become a Town concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re putting the cart in front of the horse here. Until that becomes an issue,
where the Town’s going to want that, or the property owner’s going to want the Town to do that, that’s
something that’s going to be done through a deed modification, instead of us doing it.
MR. STEVES-You’re right.
MR. STROUGH-So do you like this the way it’s currently worded, lots numbered five and seven, shown and
defined silt basins. Deeds for lots five and seven will contain easement rights for access and maintenance of
the silt basins?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, the whole easement rights, maintenance and all that comes right out. Because what
he’s telling us is the deed is going to say to the property owner who buys lots five and seven it’s your
responsibility to take care of those sedimentation basins.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to throw out the easement rights all together?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-They’ll be in the transfer in the deed. Is that what you’re really saying there, Craig, the deed
will transfer the property with that statement?
MR. BROWN-I guess there’s two ways to do it. Mr. Raven could leave the easement rights in there and give
himself an easement over the property to maintain them if he wants to maintain the basins, or he could just
say, look, you buy the lot, you get the basin. It depends. If he doesn’t want to maintain it, there’s no need for
an easement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Neither one of those should be a concern of this Board, though. Is that correct or not?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the way the property is turned over.
MR. SCHACHNER-At this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I’m not comfortable with leaving a property owner the responsibility of taking care of
drainage that’s occurring from, you know, God knows where, and I don’t feel particularly assured that that
kind of methodology is going to work here, and I’d like to leave my options open.
MR. STEVES-The easement in there for the developer to maintain that until such time, either way, it doesn’t
make any difference. The sedimentation basin, once it’s constructed, basically maintains itself. There’s not a
lot of maintenance to it, but we would have an easement in there, so that, you know, the developer could go
in and fix it, and/or the Town could fix it or some other, any entity could go in and fix it. We’ll leave an
easement in there for the maintenance of the sedimentation basins on those two lots.
MR. STROUGH-I think one of the concerns is who will get that easement.
MR. STEVES-Who would get the responsibility of maintaining it? In the past, like I say, if you look at a few
different subdivisions, such as Waverly Place that has the detention areas in the back, the drainage, the pipe
that leads to that drainage area, Rick Missita and the Highway Department always take an easement to 15 feet
beyond the end section. It’s been a standard of mine with past administrations and this current
administration, and the Highway Department for 20 years. As far the basin itself is always on private
property, and that has been maintained.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, allowing an easement, Counsel can correct me, isn’t necessarily assigning
responsibility. It’s just an allowance. It’s not a directive assigning responsibility. It’s just saying the Town
can gain entrance.
MR. SCHACHNER-But from our standpoint, I guess, and I don’t mean to speak for Staff, but I guess from
my standpoint as Counsel, although I think Staff agrees, I’m not understanding the Town’s ownership
interest here. An easement is a form of ownership, it’s not full ownership, but it’s a form of ownership
interest. This is a private property owner who’s applying for a residential subdivision on property that the
applicant owns. You have looked at, apparently, as I understand it, and this is your expertise, not mine, but
you’ve looked at drainage and erosion and stormwater management issues. The applicant has presented a
mitigation plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts from that. You need to either be comfortable
with that, and you’ve already issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration in which, as I understood it, you
indicated that you felt that the proposed mitigation measures would adequately mitigate any potential
environmental impacts based on stormwater erosion and drainage problems. As Counsel, I don’t think it’s
appropriate to even talk about having the Town assume liability for the stormwater erosion and drainage
problems. It’s not Town property. I don’t think it’s reasonable to want the Town to do that. I don’t think
this is something that the Town should take on as an additional liability. So I’m not understanding the need
or the desire for the Town to have an easement. It’s correct that, if at some point, an offer of dedication of
the road is made to the Town, the Town has the option, but not the obligation, to accept that offer of
dedication, and if and when that offer is made, and if the Town Board is inclined to accept that offer, at that
time it might be appropriate to talk about what drainage easements would go along with the ownership of the
road, so that the Town could take whatever steps it needs to protect the Town road, but right now we’re
looking at a private road with a private residential subdivision on it.
MR. STROUGH-Have you seen the map?
MR. STEVES-It’s a Town road at this point.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but this silt basin’s nowhere near a road.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So my concern is, should those silt basins experience failure because of lack of
maintenance, let’s say a tree falls in the way and redirects the water, or whatever, and the developer’s no
longer around, is it fair to saddle the property owner with problems that?
MR. STEVES-It happens on a regular basis, yes. That is the standard. If you look at any stormwater
detention area, that may be on any site plan you do for, you know, any store, a commercial site plan, a
residential site plan, you have them all the time for the stormwater measures, and you leave the responsibility
up to the landowner. That happens on a regular basis. Almost every site plan you approve has some kind of
stormwater control that you’re relying on the owner of that property to maintain, and as a property owner I’d
think you’d want to maintain it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think that’s a generally accurate statement. I have to stand corrected. I have not
seen the map, so I misunderstood the nature of the Town road, but I think Staff is still of the opinion that the
drainage problems are not really road drainage problems, or potential problems, I should say, that they result
from the topography and the other elements of the site that are not from the Town road.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-So basically we’re down to this. Lots numbered five and seven, shown defined silt basins.
Silt basins on lots five and seven and maintenance of those silt systems, will be the burden and responsibility
of all future landowners.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I don’t think it works well.
MR. SCHACHNER-You might want to call that lot owners, so it’s a little more specific, as opposed to
landowners.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it, Mr. Strough. I want somebody to introduce a motion for Preliminary, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t need to put any conditions on the Preliminary.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001 HAL RAVEN
(THE VISTAS), Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary stage for SB 10-2001, H. Raven, The Vistas.
Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 31.35+/- acre parcel into 2 lots of 3.48 acres (lot 9), and 27.87 acres (lot
10). Cross Reference: SB 19-1993. Tax Map No. 87.-1-10.1. Lot size: 31.35 acres. Section: Subdivision
Regulations, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 12/14/01;
12/18 Staff Notes
12/5 Meeting Notice
11/28 New Information Received – Details for proposes sediment basins to be installed in
the original subdiv. And Map S-1 revised 11-27-01
10/23 Planning Board resolution
10/23 Staff Notes
10/23 Staff notes faxed to M. Steves
10/10 New info to be received by this date, LM – New info not received
9/25 Planning Bd. resolution
9/25 Staff Notes
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing:
9/17 Planning Board from C. Brown
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 and 12/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Preliminary stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 18th day December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, do we have a Final? Anybody? Somebody?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001 HAL RAVEN (THE
VISTAS), Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of final stage for SB 10-2001, H. Raven, The Vistas.
Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision of a 31.35+/- acre parcel into 2 lots of 3.48 acres (lot 9), and 27.87 acres
(lot 10). Cross Reference: SB 19-1993. Tax Map No. 87.-1-10.1. Lot size: 31.35 acres. Section: Subdivision
Regulations, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 12/14/01;
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
12/18 Staff Notes
11/ New Information Received
10/23 Planning Board resolution
10/23 Staff Notes
10/23 Staff notes faxed to M. Steves
10/10 New info to be received by this date, LM – New info not received
9/25 Planning Bd. resolution
9/25 Staff Notes
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing:
9/17 Planning Board from C. Brown
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 and 12/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Final stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. The erosion control methods shall be shown on the final plat.
2.The newly proposed sediment traps will be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit on Lot 9.
3. No further approvals be issued for Lot 10 until such time that an overall development plan has been
generated and offered for review by the Planning Board.
4. The maintenance of the silt basins will be done by the owners of the lots.
5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
7. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to
read as follows:
“Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/18/01 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:”
1.
Duly adopted this 18th day December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STEVES-One other comment on that, real quick. I will also call George VanDusen from the County
and have my input with them, just to see if we can maybe have something done on that culvert on West
Mountain.
MR. MAC EWAN-The neighbors certainly would appreciate it.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Anything would help. Apparently they’ve been trying and haven’t been successful.
MR. STEVES-I’m doing some work with him right now. So we’ll twist his ear. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thank you, Matt.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001 MODIFICATION HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO
APPROVED SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION IS INCREASE LOT 3 FROM 2.77 ACRES TO
18.05 ACRES AND TO REDUCE LOT 4 FROM 28.67 ACRES TO 13.39 ACRES. ANY
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-6
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No public hearing needs to be done.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-2001, Modification Hayes & Hayes, Meeting Date: December 18, 2001
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes to modify two lots in a previously approved 4 lot subdivision.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The boundary line adjustment occurs between lot 3 and lot 4 in the Michael S. Hayes
subdivision; all other lot arrangements stay the same
Topography: The applicant proposes to move the lot line between lot 3 and lot 4 in order to divide the
northerly portion of the original lot 4.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed lot changes are apparently to accommodate the density
requirements for the four-plex units proposed on each lot. The water and wastewater systems have been
altered to reflect the increase in dwelling units.
Drainage: Several stormwater detention/infiltration areas are proposed on the plan.
Lot sizes: Lot 3 will increase from 2.77 ac. to 18.05 ac and lot 4 will decrease from 28.67 acres to 13.39 ac.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this modification request.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should determine if the boundary line agreement is significant
enough to require additional environmental review.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 4-2001 - Approved, 4 lot multi-
family dwelling subdivision
Staff comments:
The proposed modification appears to be consistent with the density requirements of the
zoning ordinance and the proposed structures appear to meet the minimum setbacks required by the
ordinance. The proposed modification to the subdivision layout does not appear to present any increase in
the burden on public services.”
MR. BROWN-The center access drive, as required, a single shared drive, appears to concentrate the activities
to the interior of the project, proposed clearing limits appear to leave a 50 foot buffer to the north. Staff
recommends approval with the understanding that the balance of the lots remain undeveloped.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, Mickey Hayes and Jamie Hayes. The
Staff notes are pretty thorough in this case. The modification of the boundary lines is just, as stated, to allow
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
for the density. They originally proposed a different configuration and after getting on the site and moving
the dirt around and seeing what’s there, they decided they might as well come in and just do this all at once.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. NACE-We’ll answer whatever questions you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll start with you, Mr. Strough.
MR. STROUGH-I’m not quite ready.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any questions at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Nothing on the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything on the subdivision either. It’s strictly a lot line adjustment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s starting to look really nice, with the homes they’re building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I have no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Back to you, Mr. Strough.
MR. STROUGH-Nothing on the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing to add? Anything from Staff? I’ll entertain a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2001 HAYES & HAYES,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to SB 4-2001, Hayes & Hayes to
increase lot 3 from 2.77 acres to 18.05 acres and reduce lot 4 from 28.67 to 13.39 acres. Any modification to
a Planning Board subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board. Tax Map 54-2-6.
Cross Reference: SP 30-2001, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 12/14/01;
12/18 Staff Notes
12/5 Meeting Notice
11/27 Staff Notes
11/28 Additional information received: in response to 11/8 letter from LM, items 1 thru 7 and
maps S-1 revised 11/28/01, S-2 dated 5/14/01, S-3 dated 11/28/01 and S-4 dated
11/28/01: in response to 11/8 letter from LM, items 1 thru 7 and maps S-1 revised
11/28/01, S-2 dated 5/14/01, S-3 dated 11/28/01 and S-4 dated 11/28/01
11/8 M. Hayes from LM
11/7 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent
to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Gee, that was painless.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 30-2001 MODIFICATION HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 2 FOUR-PLEXES ON LOTS 3 AND 4. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
TAX MAP NO. 54-2-6
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-2001, Modification, Hayes & Hayes, Meeting Date: December 18, 2001
“Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed project appears to comply with the minimum lot area and density requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed modification depicts on site water and wastewater systems; therefore, no impact on public
services is anticipated.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed design depicts a shared driveway, as required, and adequate area for on site parking for
the residents. The increase in density of residential development may present only minimal impact
on the existing burden to emergency services.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
The proposed project meets all required setbacks to jurisdictional wetland areas. A minimal amount
of filling, as allowed, in an Army Corps wetland is proposed. The plan appears to reserve the
remaining portions of the lots as undeveloped.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs:
The proposed layout appears to centralize the development in an effort to limit impacts on
surrounding properties.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls:
The proposed shared access drive onto Ridge Road is required per the zoning ordinance. Internal
vehicular connection, between lots, is not planned nor required.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading:
The off street parking, and attached garages are shown on the plan.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience:
No provisions for pedestrian interconnection are shown other than utilizing the proposed roadways.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities:
Several stormwater control devices are proposed for the project.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities:
The proposal calls for on site water and wastewater systems. Information supplied by the applicant
purports the existing well on lot 2 to produce over 100 gallons per minute. Each lot shall have it’s own
supply; therefore, water supply should not be an issue. The proposed wastewater disposal system has
been designed by a NYS Professional Engineer and appears to be adequate.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The proposed configuration plans for the intensity of the development to occur internally to the
project. All land clearing, building and parking are planned to be located at least 50 feet from the
adjoining property to the north. Internal landscaping, adjacent to all buildings, is proposed.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
All buildings appear to be accessible from the main, center drive.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
The proposed grading plan depicts several areas reserved for stormwater management.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 4-2001 - Approved 7/24/01, 4 lot duplex development modified 12/18/01?
Site Plan Review 30-2001 - Approved 7/24/01, 4 lot duplex development
Staff comments:
The proposed project appears to be consistent with the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The center access drive, as required appears to concentrate the activities of the project to the
interior of the site. The proposed clearing limits appear to leave at least a 50 buffer from the property line to
the north. Staff recommends approval of the project with the understanding that the balance of the lots
remain undeveloped.”
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Why is there a public hearing on a modification?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because they’re putting up two extra buildings.
MR. BROWN-I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just curious. Okay. Staff notes.
MR. BROWN-Well, I actually read through my site plan comments on the last application. So, ditto.
MR. MAC EWAN-Ditto. The floor is yours.
MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll just quickly describe, what we’re doing on the plan is locating on each lot two four
plexes. In order to maintain the required shared entrance, we’ve simply taken an entrance road straight down
the property line. We’ve moved the units well back into the lot, to help buffer them from the road, and vice
versa, buffer the road from the development. The septic systems for the front two units will be located out in
front, in that buffer area, and the septic systems for the rear two units in behind. We’ve provided the swales,
and small detention areas for the stormwater from the pavement and the roofs to drain into. The sand, the
upper layers of soil on the site are fairly permeable. So those areas the water will collect and simply seep into
the soil. So there are infiltration basins, and that’s basically it in a nutshell. Their wells, each lot, each four
plex, each two four-plexes will share a well. So there’ll be two wells located. The wells drilled on the existing
site have provided substantial quantities of water. So there’s plenty of water available, and the quality is good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. NACE-That’s it. Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m going to hold for a minute.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got some basic questions here. This is going to be a fill system, Tom?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now, what is the factor on consolidation of the soil prior to obtaining a test pit
result on fill to fill systems? We have some cycle that we have to go through, thaw, freeze.
MR. NACE-If there’s no inspection, the Health Department regulations say that if there’s no inspection, then
it has to go through a full freeze/thaw cycle over the winter. If there is engineering inspection of the systems,
and testing of the soil, then you can use mechanical compaction, and do your test as soon as the compaction
is done, use the system right away.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What’s the significance of the Department of Health requirement that the public
water supply be operated under their jurisdiction? Are they going to have an on-site look at this? Are they
going to monitor the water?
MR. NACE-That simply means that when we do the wells, that they will review the system, okay. We’ve got
to submit a plan of the system. It’ll have to be chlorinated. The plan’s got to be submitted to the
Department of Health for that, and then there will be periodic testing the water.
MR. VOLLARO-And who’ll do that periodic testing?
MR. NACE-Actually, they’ll have to retain a licensed operator to “maintain the system”.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was driving at.
MR. NACE-Yes. There will have to be a licensed operator to operate the system.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So he’ll be on-site, essentially.
MR. NACE-Well, he will come on-site periodically, to record data.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what I mean. Now, just looking at the site itself, and the water table on this site,
and one of the reasons you’ve got to go to a fill system is because of the water table, and I’m just wondering,
is a stormwater management plan required here, due to the high water table or have we just, have we
bypassed that issue? I was just looking at, you know, the conditions of getting rid of water in a high water
table area, and how is that being performed?
MR. NACE-Okay. I’ve gone through all the calculations and all the pieces of design that normally get gone
through in a stormwater management plan. We’ve kept the basins high enough that there’s still some
unsaturated soil during peak high water, that that can filter down through, that the stormwater can filter into
the soil. So that’s why the whole site’s raised as high as it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s no stormwater detention ponds or retention ponds?
MR. NACE-Yes, there are. Let me just quickly review this with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Four of them.
MR. NACE-This whole front area, there’s a little pond in here that takes any runoff from this raised area.
There’s a pond, and I say pond, they’re swales. They’re just low depressions, along the north side here that
takes runoff from the back of this unit, and from part of the road here. There’s one in here that takes runoff
from the rear yards, and from some of the pavement here. There’s one over here. There’s one here, one
here, one here.
MR. VOLLARO-So your calculations were all based on those retention ponds?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the only other thing I have is the fact that the lots, the balance of lots one through
four will remain undeveloped, that the plan is to remain undeveloped. Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-You were talking about the water system. One of the things that kind of surprised me is
that you didn’t have individual wells for each building. I’m not sure why I expected to see that. I was just
kind of surprised to see only two wells. I mean, I know it’s a Department of Health issue more than it is
ours.
MR. NACE-And for the Department of Health, it doesn’t matter whether there are five wells or one per lot.
It’s the total population of the project that puts it into the purview of a public water supply.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s enough volume?
MR. NACE-I think your existing well was 100 gallons a minute, 150 gallons a minute.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was really the only question I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-The western infiltration systems go over some kind of a wetland. I don’t see a legend on
here, Mr. Nace, but you see how the wetland goes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s where the wetland disturbance is going to be filled.
MR. NACE-If you look at the different color hatched, or different density hatch, that’s wetland that’s to be
filled, within the one-tenth of an acre permitted under the Corps Nationwide permit.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the only area that there would be wetland disturbance.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’ll be all right, though, with those infiltration trenches? Because that’ll be
basically an above ground system?
MR. NACE-Yes. It’s all filled in there, yes.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Are you going to have, it appears that you’re going to have basements in these. Is
that accurate?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Is there any plans to put perimeter drains?
MR. NACE-The basements are, I believe, a foot and a quarter, foot and a half above existing ground level,
which is, again, about a foot and a half above high water table.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I wouldn’t be real comfortable with that, as an owner, and I’ve just seen, the
basement floor would be at 293 feet, and adjacent to each one of these four-plexes, you have drainage
basements which are approximately three feet lower.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So it’s entirely possible to put in a workable drainage system around the perimeter of the
basin.
MR. NACE-Yes. To answer your question, yes, just to keep this, just for damp-proofing, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Just for insurance. The only other thing that I had a concern, well, I shouldn’t say that,
another concern I had was the well locations. I couldn’t, I didn’t know where the wells were going to be
located.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, on the northerly lot, the well is right here, 100 foot separation from the buffer
around the fill, and same here. So the wells are in between the units and the septic’s already in. I’m sorry, on
the small scale drawing they really, you have to go to the other plan, they show up. Right here, there and
there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, and parking, you say you have ample parking here. If everyone’s home
where are guests going to park? I’m just assuming each apartment has two cars, at least.
MR. NACE-Yes, each has, well, actually, the way it’s planned, each has two, there are two spaces here, plus a
garage, two spaces here plus a garage, and then four spaces in the middle. So for a four-plex, there are
actually ten spaces, including the garage.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s ample, isn’t it?
MR. STROUGH-Well, a lot of people don’t park, per se, in the garage. I don’t. I park out in front of the
garage most of the summer. So, actually, you’ve got two for one apartment, two for that apartment, two for
that apartment and two for that apartment. So if everyone had two cars, and all cars were home, and they
didn’t have any teenage kids, and they only had two cars, where are visitors going to park?
MR. MAC EWAN-If they didn’t have three SUV’s and four tractor trailers, I mean, aren’t we splitting hairs
here?
MR. STROUGH-No, I’m just saying, there’s just no visitor parking.
MR. BROWN-Yes, the Ordinance only requires two spaces per dwelling unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s meeting the requirements, John. It’s not like Regency Park.
MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t mean that the applicant would be interested in adding parking.
MR. NACE-Apartment dwellers do use the garages, more than homeowners. Homeowners accumulate
more, I think, but typically, from what I’ve seen, the newer apartments, the garages are used.
MR. STROUGH-Well, when I go to visit friends of mine up at Dixon Heights, which are set up the same
way, I park out in the road. I guess that’s okay.
MR. NACE-Well, it’s a private road. If somebody has to go around the car that’s temporarily parked, it’s no
big deal.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just concerned. I see the infiltration areas. I didn’t see any stormwater plan for the
roadway.
MR. NACE-It drains into those swales, those low infiltration areas. The grading is designed so that it all
sheet drains off into those low areas. Some of it’s crown, some of it’s cross sloped, depending on where
you’re at.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I didn’t see any plans depicting that, but I can see how your assessment works.
Your landscaping, you have white pines. I mean, everything looks fine except, you know, the white pines can
get pretty scraggly looking, and I didn’t know why you chose white pines over, say, blue spruce, you know, on
the entry way, to kind of give the vegetative screening.
JIM MILLER
MR. MILLER-Good evening, Jim Miller. I guess the reason we selected the white pines, just to go with
plants, you know, there’s white pine growing wild in the area, just so it was more natural and indigenous.
We’d have no problem changing it to spruce.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, just aesthetically, and this is just my call. The pine trees can get scraggly
looking. I find that the blue spruces just are, for lack of a better word, kind of richer looking, more dense,
you know, provide more screening, but, you know, I don’t think the rest of my Planning Board members
could care less one way or the other.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, John. It’s Christmas time.
MR. STROUGH-But I just thought it would look better with blue spruce, but, and the maples inside, I think
those are great, and the summit ash is good. I had no problems with that.
MR. LAPPER-How about seven white pine and seven blue spruce?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s only one Planning Board member asking for that. It’s a pretty safe assumption
he’s out there by himself on that. Anything else, Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-Hold on. Just what are the buildings going to look like, the architecture of the exterior
siding, are they going to be?
MICKEY HAYES
MR. HAYES-The roof lines, we’re going to step it out so it breaks up so it doesn’t look so flat. Everybody
has a private entrance, no common entrances. They’ll seem more home like. We’re going to use pressure
colored sidings.
MR. STROUGH-Recessed garages, that’s good.
MR. HAYES-Architectural shingles. We’re doing it right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Real pretty.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-Do I have any support on the blue spruce?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re out there all by yourself. You’re out on that limb all by yourself. Tom, we’re back
to you.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think everything looks great. The building looks nice. The vegetation plan looks
good. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you guys wanted to add? I’ll entertain a motion, please.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only other thing that I have is from Staff notes, and they’ve made a note,
proposed grading plan to depict the amount of fill will be brought on site. I don’t know, just a Staff note.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to introduce the resolution, Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I can get the blue spruce in.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a dead issue.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you can just say no to the project. So, any concerns about that on behalf of Staff?
Dated November 8, 2001.
MR. BROWN-What’s the question?
MR. STROUGH-It’s a proposed grading plan. Did we get that?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. NACE-I think that was before this last submission, that included the full grading plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got all the old stuff here, too. I try and paper clip it, but. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to do it, or do you want somebody else? Leave the trees out.
MR. STROUGH-I’m so tempted.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2001 HAYES & HAYES,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 30-2001, for
construction of 2 four-plexes on lots 3 and 4. Any modification to an approved site plan is subject to
Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 54-2-6. Cross Reference: SB 4-2001, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 12/14/01,
12/18 Staff Notes
12/11 Notice of Public Hearing
12/5 Meeting Notice
11/28 Information Received in response to 11/8 letter – LM from T. Nace, Items 1 thru 7 and
maps S-1 revised 11/28/01, S-2 dated 5/14/01, S-3 dated 11/28/01 and S-4 dated
11/28/01: in response to 11/8 letter from LM, items 1 thru 7 and maps S-1 revised
11/28/01, S-2 dated 5/14/01, S-3 dated 11/28/01 and S-4 dated 11/28/01
11/8 M. Hayes from LM
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/18/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements
of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification is approved in accordance with the motion as prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The balance of Lots 1 through 4 shall remain undeveloped, and
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/18/01 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 MODIFICATION RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAY ROAD,
BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION IS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE
NUMBER OF LOTS IN PHASE I FROM 14 LOTS TO 3 LOTS. ALSO, THE MODIFICATION
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY GRAVEL TURN-AROUND/CUL-DE-SAC.
ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR 12 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE LOTS, 3 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 1 LOT FOR FUTURE USE. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 13-2001, SP 19-2001 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 81.86 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER, RICH SCHEMERHORN, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2000, Modification, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: December
18, 2001 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes a relocation of the Phase line for the subdivision. The original approval granted a two
phase subdivision with Phase I having 14 lots and Phase II having 2 lots. The proposed modification is to
relocate the Phase I / II line to allow for only 3 lots in Phase I.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The new phase line is proposed to be relocated to include lots 4,5 and 6 as shown on the
original approved layout. No lot line changes are proposed at this time.
Topography: No changes in grading are proposed with this action.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: No changes are proposed to the water and wastewater systems.
Drainage: “Temporary” drainage facilities are proposed to be constructed in order to manage stormwater
created by the temporary turn around in the middle of the frontage of lot 6.
Lot sizes: No changes to any lots are proposed at this time.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this modification request.
Roadway and Rights of way A temporary turnaround is proposed to be constructed along the frontage of lot 6.
Such a turn around would be removed upon the completion of the roadway associated with Phase II.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The board should determine if the boundary line agreement is significant
enough to require additional environmental review.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 9-2000 Approved 3/27/01, 16 lot subdivision
Site Plan 13-2001 Approved 5/29/01 Daycare Center
Site Plan 19-2001 Approved 5/29/01 Professional Office Building
Staff comments:
The proposed Phase line relocation does not present any conflicts with the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. No lot lines are to be relocated. It appears as though the temporary turn around would be
sufficient for emergency vehicle access. With the addition of supplemental, albeit temporary, stormwater
control measures, there does not appear to be any additional impact on the wetland areas. Staff would
recommend approval of the modification with the understanding that no further alterations or development
of lots outside of Phase I shall occur prior to the installation of the municipal sanitary sewer system.”
MR. BROWN-Staff has a concern that no incremental, let’s make the phase line, move it a couple of more
lots next week, be done until the sewer issues are taken care of. That’s it.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. Very simply, this is just a
temporary application for the cul de sac to allow Rich to go in and construct the next building. Although we
received the DEC stream crossing permit for the portion of the road that crosses that small stream, it’s too
late in the season to do the construction, and the sewer line, when that’s finally approved between the Town
and the City, would go in the road, and Rich just wanted to be careful and not make that expenditure without
knowing that it was a done deal, and we expect that that will be a done deal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you quickly update the Board, where are we on that? That you are aware of.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the sewer agreement?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-When the deadline was about to pass for funding of the IDA, the $800,000 scheduled money
that was going to the sewer improvements that was going to the IDA Industrial Park by the airport, the Town
and the City came together and signed a memo of understanding that was very detailed, that laid out the
whole deal, but there’s still the actual contract itself still has to be signed, and I understand that that’s close,
but that’s hasn’t been signed. So right now Rich can’t go and hook up to a Bay Road sewer line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we weeks or months off, do you think?
MR. LAPPER-Weeks, from what I’m told.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-Me?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you’re next on the list.
MR. RINGER-On Staff notes, Staff made a recommendation that no further development be done until you
do get the sewer in. You saw those Staff notes?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The issue there, both of the first two lots that were approved for the site plans were able
to be developed with on-site septic system.
MR. RINGER-I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-With the understanding that, once sewer goes in, that would be replaced with a sewer line. It
is inefficient to keep designing them that way, but at the same time, because it’s just doing it twice, but at the
same time, if the sewer deal lingers for another two years, and somebody wants Rich to build an office
building and the sewer supported an on-site system, we probably would want to come back and say, we’ll do
it again with on-site system, which we would agree to take out as soon as the sewer line is available. So I’m
just not sure, as long as the soils support an on-site system and the municipal sewer is not yet available, I’m
not sure that it’s necessary to have that condition. We’d have to come in and apply for a site plan and talk
about the soils anyway. So I guess Rich would like to reserve his option to come in and do a third building, if
necessary, and hopefully this will not be necessary, the sewer line will go in.
MR. RINGER-Staff made a recommendation. How do you feel about that, Craig?
MR. BROWN-I guess the Staff recommendation was no further development outside of Phase I. So that
gives them three lots in Phase I, and nothing further, and I don’t know if that’s what Mr. Lapper just referred
to, but.
MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. Thanks, Craig. I don’t have anything else, Craig.
MR. LAPPER-Well, in terms of that, I mean, theoretically, if the spring comes and the agreement’s still not
signed, and somebody wanted to build on a lot outside, Rich could go in and do the road. We’d have to deal
with where the sewer line was going to go, but if the sewer deal never comes together, Rich would still want
to develop the office park.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m a little confused about this agreement. Just go through that one more time,
quickly.
MR. LAPPER-Between the Town and the City?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. LAPPER-What they signed, they signed an actual agreement so that the line could go in to service the
IDA park. That had to happen, but for the rest of the capacity addition for the Town, including the Bay
Road corridor, my understanding is that that is still, there’s a memo of understanding that everyone signed
but they haven’t signed the actual contract.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-I’m just a little concerned that all of our previous approvals, we’ve approved those two
buildings that he’s built with the understanding that he’s going to use the system temporarily but the sewer
was going to go in. I kind of agree with Staff that I’d rather not go with any future, until this sewer does get
in.
MR. NACE-I think you’ve always got the opportunity for review, based on the current (lost words) if we
come back in the future for another lot, before the sewer is done, okay, at that time you can always make the
decision of yes or no, and probably if we were considering that, we’d want to come back and talk to you
before we completed an application.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else on this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-No, just that we’d prefer that not be a condition, under the circumstances, if we can’t control
the Town and the City all get together (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-I want to make sure I’m real clear on this, what the Staff comment is saying. It’s saying
that anything else out of Phase I.
MR. LAPPER-Hopefully that will happen very quickly, but that may never happen, and we may have to
design on-site systems.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my personal feeling is, even if that was our intent and feeling, I really don’t see a
need to put it into this resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I agree with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to introduce a resolution?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2000 RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to SB 9-2000, Richard Schermerhorn,
Baybrook Professional Park. Modification is for a reduction in the number of lots in Phase I from 14 lots to
3 lots. Also, the modification proposes construction of a temporary gravel turn-around / cul-de-sac.
Original approval was for 12 professional office lots, 3 residential lots and 1 lot for future use, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/19/01;
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 12/14/01;
12/18/01 Staff Notes
12/5/01 Meeting Notice
11/28 C. Round from T. Nace – letter and maps S-1 revised 11/28/01 and S-4 revised
5/9/01
11/19 C. Round from J. Lapper – request to be placed on agenda
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you still want to discuss this other thing?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN – PRESENTATION OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR
APARTMENTS ON THE MEADOWBROOK SIDE OF BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK
PROPERTY.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-Did you all get aerial photos of this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we did.
MR. LAPPER-Before I ask Rich to just explain his concept for this project, we wanted to come in on an
informal basis before submitting and get your input. We have Shelley Johnston with us from Creighton
Manning Traffic Engineers, who has done a lot of work in the Town. Rich knows from the discussions that
we had on the office park that traffic was an issue with the Board, and thought that the smart thing here
would be to commission a formal traffic study to discuss that. One of the issues is whether or not there
should or shouldn’t be a cut through between Meadowbrook and Bay, and Shelley can talk about that issue,
but we just thought it was appropriate to come in, on a project of this size, and talk to the Board informally.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Rich Schermerhorn for the record. I asked for this workshop because I
know a lot of questions are going to come up, and we’ve been through this before, but I just want to be clear
with everybody what they’d like and what they wouldn’t like. As you can see, I’ve got proposed walking trails
in there. I have some recreation. I’ve got a pool, playground. We’ve outlined all the wetlands, and we’ve
subtracted all the wetlands, right of ways. We haven’t counted any of the wetlands for density, and like Jon
was saying, I also have Creighton Manning, Shelley Johnston here, that’s conducting a traffic study as well,
because I know that’s going to be important. So that’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MR. LAPPER-We’ll give you a quick overview.
JIM MILLER
MR. MILLER-For the record, Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. Actually, Rich said it right. What he wanted
to do was get an overall plan of the residential section. It’s going to come back to the Board in various
phases and various lots after the subdivision is done. We thought it would be appropriate to do an overall
that showed the entire proposed master plan that we’re working towards, and what the proposal is going to
be is right now there’s two lots, 13 and 14, which are part of the existing approved subdivision that you just
looked at, and the existing cul de sac, temporary cul de sac, is right in that area. So one of the first proposals
is going to be to come back, you know, the entire back portion now is considered Lot 16. So one of the
proposals is going to be to come back and do additional subdivision of that back portion, which would
extend the road, eliminate the temporary cul de sac and would extend it all the way through to Meadowbrook,
and in so doing, it would subdivide 16, Lot 16 into two lots, which on this plan we’ve shown as Lot 16A and
16B. So at that point, we would have four individual lots, and Rich, we haven’t even looked at how this
would be phased, but, you know, he would obviously come in for site plan for each one of those lots, and
what we’ve done is Lots 13 and 14 are the existing lots, and using the MR-5 density, you know, it would allow
16 units on Lot 13 and 20 units on Lot 14, which is what we’ve shown, and the proposal is that in this area
these would be townhouses with attached garages, and driveways. No common parking area, but townhouses
which may be rental or for sale. The back portion of the property, Lots 16A and 16B, the 16B is, you know,
at the MR-5 density, it shows 84 units, and that’s what’s shown on there. The concept we use is similar to
what seems to be working very well at the Hiland Springs, doing a cluster concept of the units in groups with
access out onto the new road, and the road would be a Town road, and then Lot 16A, the larger lot, is
substantially less than the proposed density, and a lot of that is because that’s a DEC, large DEC wetland on
that site, and because of the buffer areas requiring a wetland, and some upland that’s isolated by that wetland,
the development would be limited to what’s just along the road. This would stay as a natural area, and now
it’s kind of brush and eventually would grow back into woods. This portion of the site, as you can see from
the aerial photo, borders along, mostly along the golf course, in that area. There is also some federal wetland
in this corner, which we’re avoiding and provides some buffer along Meadowbrook, and as Rich mentioned,
there’s centrally located recreation facility. At this point we’re looking at a clubhouse with some bathrooms
and changing rooms and meeting room type of thing, swimming pool, and a playground, and we looked at
connecting to the higher density areas with some trails, not only to the community facility, but also to kind of
link the different clusters of units together so there’d be pedestrian access through the entire complex, and
that’s pretty much it, where we are right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Both those scenarios, both sections of the development, you’ve got the density maxed
out?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MILLER-No. Three of the four lots are at the allowable density.
MR. LAPPER-I think we could get 270 (lost words).
MR. MILLER-I remember at one time like 275 units would be allowed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Shelley, how much traffic would this generate?
SHELLEY JOHNSTON
MS. JOHNSTON-About 150 trips in the peak hour.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s with or without the road connecting Bay to Meadowbrook?
MS. JOHNSTON-The project itself, the proposed land uses, would generate those trips, about 150. Part of
the traffic study scope will be looking at not only this project, but the rest of the uses in the park, the offices,
the day care center, what they will generate, and then there’s other approved projects that are in some stage of
either approval, construction, or planning that we’ve also considered, or are going to consider. There’s, I
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
think, a total of six projects, in and around this area, that we’ll have to consider for traffic. So, the answer to
the Chairman’s question is just the trip generation associated with 236 units, about 150 trips.
MR. VOLLARO-Really, to do a comprehensive look at this, though, we’ve got to look at all the other
potential activities around this proposed development.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s really what Shelley is saying.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what you’re just saying.
MR. NACE-She has been looking at, for instance, the office park (lost words) across the road there that’s not
developed yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-One of the things I would be looking at is the cumulative impacts of what’s going to
happen with the traffic on Meadowbrook. Meadowbrook’s going to get to the point where it’s going to be a
breaking point, and I think we’re close to it now, as far as the amount of traffic that that road can handle,
especially at the lower end of Meadowbrook, toward Cronin Road. With that highly residential area at that
end of it, that the road’s very tight and narrow at that point, and I can see a lot of traffic going that way.
MS. JOHNSTON-We can certainly look at the capacity of that section, the way it is now, versus what we
anticipate will be the future demand on that road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, that was one of my specific concerns was that intersection of Meadowbrook
and Cronin.
MS. JOHNSTON-In what regard?
MR. HUNSINGER-Just in regard to the increased traffic that’s going to result, as a result of the projects that
are in that corridor.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can rest assured that probably 2/3rds or 3/4’s of that whole rental end of it, as far
th
as the apartments, will probably want to funnel out onto Meadowbrook Road. The quickest way to
downtown.
MS. JOHNSTON-I’m just trying to clarify. Your concern is the additional through traffic on Meadowbrook
past Cronin?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just the increase in traffic at that intersection specifically. I mean, as the Chairman
said, I think there’s going to be an increase in traffic on Meadowbrook Road, as a result of this project and
the others that are either in reduced stages or approved.
MS. JOHNSTON-Certainly.
MR. STROUGH-I think you’re also talking about the burden on Cronin intersection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And Quaker Road intersection.
MR. HUNSINGER-He said just the burden on the Cronin intersection, and even Quaker Road intersection.
MR. MAC EWAN-Shelley, what extent have you done a traffic study on this? Has it just been preliminary, or
have you really jumped into looking at trip counts and all that sort of stuff?
MS. JOHNSTON-We’ve done traffic counts. We wanted to get the traffic counts done before we were really
into the shopping season, but the traffic counts that we’ve done are at the intersection, basically the four
major intersections, I’ll call major intersections where you would essentially change directions. We are
looking at the intersection of Meadowbrook with Haviland and Meadowbrook and Quaker, and then Bay
Road with Haviland and Quaker. Those four primary intersections. That was the scope that we discussed
with Chris Round before we went out and did our data collection. That was how we got some information
regarding the other projects in the area. We looked at both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Again, with
residential you have a highly directional distribution. Not everybody is exiting in the morning. Not
everybody, but a high percentage exiting in the morning, and then high percentage entering in the afternoon.
Again, with that trip generation, and how that traffic would be distributed, given that it’ll connect both Bay
and Meadowbrook, and then how it would influence the traffic that’s generated by the other uses in that park,
in the business park, professional park.
MR. SEGULJIC-What type of units are these going to be? Elderly, I mean, single family?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it’s going to be a mixed use. Where Omni Development already has their
approvals, I think you can see the building it says Omni on it, in the center. The town homes, where I show
the driveways with the garages, I’m going to primarily try and keep those cottage style to kind of blend with
what they have, which’ll be primarily seniors. Then I am going to have a mixed use. The ones on the golf
course will probably be what I considered my higher rent ones, and then across the street will be some that’ll
be, you know, I call it affordable. I don’t want to say low income, but affordable apartments, similar to a lot
of the other ones, well not a lot of the other ones, but like the ones I have across from the Girl Scout office
on Meadowbrook now. Prices that range from $525 to $550. Then I’ll have some that are $625 to $650, in
that price range. I don’t intend to do the ones like Hiland Park. I’m renting those as fast as I can put them
up, and those are getting $800 to $850 a month. The lowest rent right now that I get over at the Hiland ones
is $725. I am, you know, a lot of people say, well, are you worried about a saturation point. Being in this for
the last 15 years, I know what works and what doesn’t, because this is all I do. Saturation point could be
reached if I was to do 200+ units that are going to be like Hiland Park, that are going to be the, you know,
$750, $800 a month. There’s a tremendous need for apartments that are affordable. When I say affordable
I’m not talking low, low income, but I’m talking $525, $550, $600. Because right now I currently have up and
operating about 186 units that are all in the $675, $635 price range in the surrounding area, but I’m missing
that $525, $550, $625, $650 price range. So there’s a tremendous need for them, and as long as the Town
keeps growing the way it’s growing, as you’re all aware that retail keeps growing. There’s new proposals all
the time for new big box stores, more retail restaurants, that sort of thing. These people that work at these
places generally are not the ones that can afford the $800 a month apartments. So the need is there because it
keeps growing, continuously. So I know sometimes the question arises, where do you do your market
studies. Well, market studies of being in it for the last 15 years. So the price range, I’ll still come in, like
we’ve done in the past, I’ll make the buildings attractive. I have no problem doing a lot of landscaping. I
think by showing the bike trails and the pool, and the playground also, I like, I don’t know if anybody has
seen the lighting that I put in. I call it like the Saratogian lanterns that I have at my Hiland. I would propose
to put those in in the complex. Just because they’re town homes or apartments that are going to rent for less
doesn’t mean that they can’t have an aesthetic appearance of being rich looking. So I will come in with
photos, architectural renderings that can show attractive looking buildings, and again, I always emphasize to
people, for example, I’m in Hudson Falls right now. I’m almost done with a 35-unit project that I started in
July, and we’re almost done and I’m just about sold out. My lowest rent apartment in Hudson Falls, on the
boulevard next to Samaritan Counseling Center, is $725 a month. The highest is $800. I’ve got 48 more
units going up right now across from BOCES on Dix Ave., which these are all just over the Town of
Kingsbury line. So, the need is there. So, I mean, because I know the question comes up, are you going to be
able to fill these. They’ll be filled before I complete them. So, I feel it’s a need that will be fulfilled in the
Town of Queensbury, because there’s a lot of people that, that’s the price range that they can afford, and also
to keep in mind that this particular parcel, I couldn’t even do a single family home in here. I’d have to get a
variance, because it is MR-5, and it’s only zoned for two things, office buildings and multi-family. Which
multi-family, of course, can consist of the senior housing, which was approved, or town homes, which could
be sold, and that’s still a possibility with the ones by the Omni Development, because I think it makes a nice
pattern if I was to sell some of the ones by the Omni Development.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the Omni Development?
MR. RINGER-That’s senior housing.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Senior housing.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did that one probably almost a year ago.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. It was approved, as a matter of fact, in July of this year.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was it? It seems like it was a long time ago. Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What are the, there’s the Omni Development, but what, again, were those units in the
southwestern part?
MR. MILLER-Part of that, the Omni, they had, similar to the Eddy project, they have a large multi-family
building, and then these are single cottages, what once were cottages.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, Rich, your apartments, are those one bedroom with one bath, two bedrooms
with two baths, or vary?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Typically, we do a mix, two and threes. We don’t do a lot of one bedrooms
because even a single person still wants the extra room, for a den or a guest, but typically a lot of them will
be, and keep in mind, the studies that have been done on apartments, like Hiland for example, you’ll get a
single person that will rent a three bedroom unit. Now I’ll have two’s available, but the single person,
because of the money, the extra $50 might not mean a lot to them, but they’ll rent a three bedroom, just so
they have it for guests, parents coming in.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So each of those, basically, has two baths with them?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Some have two baths. Some I’ll do with one bath. I mean, like the apartment that
might rent for $550 a month. That typically will be a two bedroom, one full bath, and one of the things that’s
been very popular with all the units I’ve built, is I have, every single unit, washer/dryer hookups, fully
applianced kitchens. Even the ovens are self-cleaning ovens. I don’t make them so basic. I mean, I upgrade
everything a little bit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it makes it a lot easier for you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Right now we just, I went over my rent roll before I came here. I have 232
apartments operating right now that are complete. Every one of them is rented, and every month, everybody
is on a yearly lease, and when a renewal comes up, like we had six people that didn’t renew out of the 232 this
month, these are all new in the last 15 years. A lot of them are new, obviously, in the last five years, but the
staff that I have and the phone calls that we receive, we have them filled before the people move out. I
mean, we have, literally, we go in in the middle of the night, Saturday, Sunday, whatever it takes, and we turn
those over and we have new people in them immediately, and the other thing to keep in mind, I know
sometimes when people hear the word “rentals”, they thing, well, we’re going to get rough characters. We’re
going to get, you know, trouble. I always tell people, keep in mind that just because a person doesn’t pay a lot
of money in rent, it doesn’t mean that they’re a bad person. It means that, A, they’re either on a fixed
income, or they’re starting out, or they just simply can’t, they don’t make a lot. Maybe they’re a clerk at a
general store and they just make the minimum wage. It doesn’t make that person a bad person. What gets
complexes into trouble is when you have, it’s management. When you don’t screen them, you don’t fill out
rental app.’s. anybody that’s ever tried to get in one of our apartments will find that, as a matter of fact, we
charge an application fee now because we do that much research to call their employers, central credit,
previous landlords, we make sure that we can, when they put down a friend or family member, we call those
numbers and make sure those are real numbers. I’m not going to say I haven’t been burnt a few times, but,
you know, we really, management is everything, in any business.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I want to ask the question, have any of you seen the letter from Marilyn Ryba?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because she makes the point on these 36 driveways that are on a Town road, and it’s
a good point because if that’s a Town road, and it does get interconnecting traffic between the Meadowbrook
and Bay, backing out is going to be an interesting proposition if that road starts to carry, if you find in your
traffic study, when you do a comprehensive traffic study, and take a look at what kind of a load that road
might take in the a.m./p.m. period, and if people are trying to get out or get into those driveways, it might be
interesting.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at that issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I just want to ask, on the maintenance of the pools, and the recreation facilities, are
you going to plan on running a maintenance, in other words, you will be responsible for maintaining those
facilities?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. All the properties that I have, a matter of fact, even to now, we maintain, we
do all our snow removal, our lawn care, trash removal. That’s another thing, I take care of all of that. So that
we never have to worry about trash sitting out at the edge of the road. As far as the pool goes, I have looked
into the pool situation several times. There’s outfits locally here that you can hire that will literally come once
a day, check for the chlorine, and will maintain the whole thing. I wouldn’t even propose, myself, but I
would hire someone to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-That person would be on your payroll, essentially?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Honestly, for the pool, it would probably be an independent, like a Cypress Pool
or someone that I hire as a service, because it is two months, two and a half months out of the year.
MR. RINGER-If you sell some of the units, what will you have, a homeowners association you’ll have to set
up, or how would that work with some of the units? This is something new. I don’t think you’ve come
before us before where some of them were going to be sold and some of them were going to be.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and the ones with the driveways, that’s where I thought, if anything, those
would be the ones that would be attractive to sell, and it would kind of, you know, those would be the ones
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
where maybe seniors would grab them because it’s in a senior environment with the Omni. Those, and again,
I might decide to keep them as well, but it’s just, it’s an idea that I have at this time.
MR. SEGULJIC-With the open land you have in the northwest corner, I guess, do you plan on letting that go
wild or maintaining that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we had Army Corps and DEC flag it for us, and we located all the flags, of
course, and the way that we’re, we’re not asking for any variances, but we’re strictly building what’s permitted
within the boundaries. So that will remain forever wild.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then you have trails down in the southeast corner, connecting, but you don’t have them
going up to the other units, I believe.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Up to the Omni Development, the larger project?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, those units, yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That was a recommendation that Marilyn put in the Staff notes, and I have no
problem doing that. It’s just, it’s up to Omni if, because it’s all seniors in the complex. I certainly think it
would be nice, and that’s something that could be added easy enough.
MR. SEGULJIC-That seems like it would be nice.
MR. LAPPER-They already had that under contract. So we’d have to talk to them.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But it seems reasonable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I certainly would entertain any suggestions at this time, because I do intend to
move forward on it, and I think we can all see I’m making a good faith effort that I’m moving and I realize
that we need the sewers, and I’m here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe this would be the catalyst to get the Town and the City together.
MR. LAPPER-Something has to work.
MR. SEGULJIC-One other comment, I guess. Have you looked at the public transportation, I mean, stops
in the area?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As far as the bus route? Yes. Well, right now the bus route stops right at Cronin,
and I believe it goes up Meadowbrook, but it doesn’t stop there because there’s really no pick ups yet, but I
think the seniors, or the Eddy Group now, I think it is going to stop there, because the bus route does go to
the Town of Queensbury, and I know it goes down Bay Road. I’m sure it’s just a matter of requesting them
to put a stop in.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, did you have a question or two?
MR. STROUGH-Do you have any idea, Rich, when Omni is planning on doing?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Omni has told me that they’re looking at like mid-summer, possibly fall. The
background on Omni is they’re a really large, large development company out of Albany, and a lot of times,
when they do these projects, they depend on getting these credits, or tax credits and funding for these
projects. Well, this round they didn’t get the credits, but they’re a little different than other developers. The
contract they have with us, they’re buying it regardless, because they know they’ll develop it with or without
the credits, but they have told me that they want to start, you know, middle of summer.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and also, I’ve been pretty adamant about this. I don’t know if I’ve been able to get
the rest of the Planning Board, but this is what I read to you originally, when you came to us for the overall
concept. I said, Baybrook could be a showpiece development, an example for others, an aesthetic asset to the
total community, and I said I, as one Planning Board member, would like to see Baybrook as a total
comprehensive and cohesive concept, a design development that appears consistent, congruent, presents a
sense and feel of being a village, design concepts, color schemes, building forms, relationships should appear
designed in a pleasing order that appears integrated, coordinated and in harmony, and the architectural style
should not only appearance consistent but distinctive, dynamic, appealing, and not run of the mill.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
Remember that? Well, I still stand by that, and as far as the lighting, and the architectural style, that’s
something that is a concern to me, and I don’t know how many of these Planning Board people are on board
with that concept, and I do like the idea that you’ve included a community center. I thought that was a great
idea, the trail I thought was a great idea. I like the clustering concept. I thought that was good, which, you
know, I had a problem with that corner area. I mean, I liked the cluster. I didn’t know if you could pull
some of those into a cluster and get those driveways off of that road. That kind of bothers me in there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where is that, John?
MR. STROUGH-The one down, the first bend.
MR. MAC EWAN-The townhouse right in the middle.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We can certainly get the driveways off. It’s just if I was to sell them, it’s hard
selling them with a shared access. That’s all, but, I can work on it.
MR. STROUGH-I mean like these others, where you have the, I don’t know if you can incorporate the same
clustering concept with the parking all in the center.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’ll certainly try.
MR. STROUGH-As opposed to, everyone will be back out in the road, and I don’t know how busy that
road’s going to get, because with Omni and these, we’re talking 80 units, 318 units, if you include 80 that
Omni has.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but they’re not going to be over in that neck of the woods.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you don’t know how busy that road’s going to be, and I’d rather see the people going
to their own alcoves.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right, John, that’s good.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to chime in here. Bob and I were just kind of chatting here, and I guess one of
the concerns I’d have with this project is the sewer never goes through, or is a long ways off. How do you
anticipate handling the sewage capacity for these units, should that not come to fruition?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it would be vacant for a few more years, I suppose.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re banking, then, on the sewers.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No doubt about it. I can say for the record, I wouldn’t even propose the
temporary septic on any apartments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been to the Town Board with this plan?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. That’s why we’re here for a workshop first, but, you see, I’ve been asked,
throughout this process, just to remain patient with the sewers. I have been, Mr. Auer, Mr. Shaw, I’ve met
with everybody. Everybody’s called me, and Michaels Group, just at the edge of my property, has put a
manhole. I actually, from what Mike Shaw has indicated to me now, once this capacity deal is reached, the
capacity will be there, if I was to pump over to Meadowbrook Road, but it’s not in the Town’s best interest or
my best interest, to take all my sewage and put it into Meadowbrook. Because we’re not helping get it up
Quaker Road if I do that. So I can, I actually have sewers there. It’s already there, exists. We could actually
draw a proposal up showing our sewage gravity feeding into the manhole that Michaels Group just put on the
corner of my property, but I’m trying to do what’s right and best. I’m remaining silent and patient, hoping
that this is all going to work out for all of us.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know it’s not a necessity for you to go see the Town Board, but I’m just kind of
wondering, from the standpoint of trying to sell the idea and maybe get the issue to some near completion, if
it wouldn’t be worthwhile to go to them and make a presentation, tell them this is what you’re going to do.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’d certainly draft a letter and ask for maybe a workshop just to propose it. I
was told by Chris Round that he had a meeting with Dennis Brower and Mike Shaw, and I guess maybe
Doug Auer and Valente. There was supposed to be a meeting of the minds last week, and I asked, I said,
would you like me to come to the meeting, and he said, no, we’re working. Just remain patient and we’ll get
back to you. So I know they’re working on it, and again, to do a workshop with the Town, that would be, I
think would probably be worthwhile for everyone involved, I guess.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Let me just chime in for a minute, Rich, and tell you that that meeting won’t take place until
after the holidays, I don’t believe.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If I were you, I would keep pressing that button. It’s important that you press that
button for this project.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Well, again, that’s why I’m kind of bringing this forward now, because I
think, if anything, it’s going to push, if everybody starts hearing about it, here it is, we’re on the, you know,
we’re at the table, we’re ready. This isn’t speculation. There’s a lot of speculation out there. People talk
about, they’re going to do this, they’re going to do that, and then it doesn’t come along.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it seems like the issues we’re dealing with here that seem to be the concerns that
maybe you need to do your homework on is access for those townhouse units, sewer capacity, architectural.
MR. STROUGH-Wait a minute, I’m not done.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, I’m just summarizing right here. I know you’re not done, architecture is the
other issue.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, I will try and come in with some buildings that are exactly what Mr.
Strough is looking for, things that are compatible with like my professional park and Omni’s. We’ll try and
blend things together as a, make it look like a village.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s what we all are looking for, as a Board.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can’t say that all of the buildings will be as fancy as Hiland as far as roof lines,
just because they’re very expensive to build, but I will come in with some designs that I think will be pleasing
to everyone, and certainly if I have to go back to the drawing board after the first time, I will. I will somehow
find a happy medium.
MR. MAC EWAN-What other questions do you have, John?
MR. STROUGH-Just, well, I like the mixed use, and I think it’s an appropriate area for a mixed use, because
you have a day care center, and that’s perfect in this kind of a multi-use project, office space up near Bay
Road, perfect. The whole area is near, it’s walkable distance to restaurants and stores. So it’s ideal for a lot of
those reasons, and it’s also another reason why I would like to see a little bit more effort at making the
interconnectability of the walking paths, so that, you know, theoretically, a resident living here could, you
know, walk and go to the restaurants, etc., you know, walkable communities is the new thing, and I think
you’re well in the good direction. The numbers scare me a little bit, but I don’t know what to do about that.
Also, I might be looking for, just thinking about it, between our offices or whatever is going to go over here
in eight, ten, twelve, it might be good to put some screening, vegetative screening in there, before we start our
apartments.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think the original plan that you guys approved for me, I think we did show
screening on the lots that separate the commercial from the residential.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that may work out well, especially if you’re going to try and work out maybe a
different arrangement here, and possibly think about adding some screening between the commercial uses
and the residential uses.
MR. NACE-Although with the office lots, if you think maybe (lost words) across the street there, the offices
look a lot like residential units, you know, to go from one to the other without a big transition.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, and you might be right. Maybe it might not need it. If we get this architectural
flow, I think your argument stands. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the people, the residents that live over on
Bayberry Road are going to ask for some more screening or buffering.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ve already, at the last meeting, I spoke to Mr. O’Neil, which is, if you look at the
aerial, he is the ranch that’s, the really large ranch that’s sprawled out, the first one as you come up like the
North Brook Road. One of the things that they asked for was would I propose to do a berm in the back
yard, similar to what I did at Hiland, and then put the, you know, the landscaping up on top. I have no
problem with that. I don’t have a problem doing a scalloped fence, something that would be decorative. I
also had said to them that I would consider doing ranch-style on that side of the road, or a cape style,
something that doesn’t show a lot of, I told them I wouldn’t do a two story building on that side of the road
that backs up to their homes, so that it doesn’t block the view, because there are, if you look at the aerials, I
believe there’s four homes that we directly effect. So I will certainly take careful consideration, because I
know they’re the ones that are going to be affected the greatest. As far as, if you look at the aerial, as far as
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
where the rest of the multi-family is, it’s kind of in an area that, it’s golf course that will remain golf course, or
forever wild land forever because when you granted approvals for the senior housing on Cronin, that density
was used up, and the golf course could never be developed, providing that they built out the senior housing.
So that will remain vacant, and then our wetlands, of course, there’s 13 or 14 acres, that will remain vacant.
So it’s going to kind of be, I would say you’re going to see them, but they’re not going to be directly on top of
the residents.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what I’m saying, if what you’re going to do appeases them, then I’m appeased.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I’ll certainly do my best. As you know, I probably won’t be able to make
them all happy, but I’ll do whatever I can.
MR. MAC EWAN-Shelley, when you do your traffic, you said you were going to take in both proposed
development that hasn’t been built yet as consideration?
MS. JOHNSTON-No.
MR. LAPPER-I think she was referring to the Michaels Group which is approved but not constructed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, did you mention the one across the way here, the park over here?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-When Chris Round and the three of us spoke, she took in the Eddy Group that’s
been approved, Hiland, the Michaels Group, Waverly Place, my 120 unit, full build out, on Bay Road, Tom
gave an estimate for all the commercial lots being maximized, my office ones, with a maximum build out. We
used max on everything because we knew this would be a major discussion that would come up.
MR. MAC EWAN-And one of the intersections we’re going to look at here is Cronin and Meadowbrook.
Right? We also have what you were just talking about, though, at Bay Meadows, that complex there that
hasn’t been built yet.
MS. JOHNSTON-The elderly housing? We’ve included that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We used it, yes. The only one that we didn’t use is, and it hasn’t even come for
formal workshop, is, I keep hearing about Charlie Brush with the senior housing across from Adirondack
Community College, but there’s no application. There’s no approvals of any sort. So we did not count that,
but again, if we did count it, it’s senior housing, again, which is very low impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t count something that’s not been planned.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Back to those units on the corner, you see, that’s what I had concerns about, on the Hayes
project, is, you know, you have parking for basically the people that are in there, and then visitor parking is
going to end up parking on the road like I do up to Dixon Heights. Whereas your clustering concept, I mean,
those can’t possibly all be filled. I mean, there’s going to be available parking. Even if you only had two
spots per apartment, you’ve just provided so many variables that you’re going to find parking.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, we’d certainly look at that, and the end units of these buildings could
always be two lanes wide as well, to get the parking off the road. So I know exactly where you’re coming
from.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. This is going to be fun. Good luck to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anymore?
MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I have no questions, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other business?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STROUGH-How about the discussion on the Beautification Committee?
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we discussing that tonight?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What?
MR. MAC EWAN-I said I wanted to get back to you on that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you said in a couple of days, and that was two weeks ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-I haven’t had a chance to talk with Staff yet. Don’t push the envelope. We’ll get to it.
MR. STROUGH-When’s the last time we approved minutes?
MR. MAC EWAN-We were supposed to do them tonight.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. I thought you guys did them.
MR. STROUGH-We didn’t do them last meeting. We didn’t do them this meeting. We’re backed up a
couple of months here, and being the new member on the Board, what if you have something about the
minutes that you want to correct? At what point do you do that?
MR. MAC EWAN-At the time we approve them.
MR. SCHACHNER-Prior to approval.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have minutes to approve tonight, by the way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I missed that because I was late. You didn’t do it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I wasn’t here. Okay.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 16, 2001: NONE
October 23, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16 AND 23, 2001, Introduced by
THRD
Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. STROUGH-Mine’s November 6, and we’re nowhere near that yet.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there’s Thursday.
MR. MAC EWAN-We can go back to the other ones, John. It’s no big deal.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, mine’s November 6.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re not approving that yet.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic
MR. MAC EWAN-Now what minutes have we missed, in your opinion, Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-There was just some wording that they didn’t get write in the Higley.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s November, but we haven’t gotten to that. You mean the Special Meeting,
John?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/18/01)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it was the Special Meeting.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Special Meeting, okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, when we come to it, I just didn’t know what to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-We may have that on for Thursday, John. If we do, note it then, please. If it’s not, then
it’ll be on in January. Anything else? If not, we can adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47